Talk:Ian Gillan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments

This article is ready to pass, not requiring any changes. Since I just started the review a few hours ago I'm going to let it sit open for a few days. But I have a few things to note / suggestions; I think that they both relate to reading British English in the US.

"Perspex" (used in Black Sabbath section) does not translate to US English. Suggest tweaking.

I added an internal link. Maybe that's enough. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "investment/investments" mis-translates into US English. (used in the lead and elsewhere) In US English, "investment" just means putting any amount of money into something in order to make money. If I buy $10 of stock in General Motors, it is a common meaning of the term that I have an investment in General Motors. From context in the article, I'm guessing that "investment" means something bigger in England such as having a larger role in the company. Suggest clarifying.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final checklist

Well-written

Passes this criteria. See a few small suggestions above. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage ~~:Passes this criteria North8000 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Temporarily struck passed criteria for "broad in coverage". Entire discography has just been deleted, and is dependent on a brand new sourceless article (which may or may not survive)for coverage of his works.North8000 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

~~:Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Temporarily struck "stable" .....maybe I wrote too soon. North8000 (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article should be quickfailed due to instability. Bits of the lead seem prone to various editors adding unsourced assertions again and again (eg: here, mini edit war here). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 6 images, all are free; no use rationale required. I would suggest adding another of the band (for variety) but such is not required to pass this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-pass

I am non-passing this article due to instability. I was ready to wait it out /see if it settled down, but the person who nominated it for GA has also recommended this and abandoned the article. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really abandoned it, more that I had nothing to add and started to question its suitability as a GA. I've informed editors who've changed the article, but tend to just get confusion over what GA is. In any state, I think the article is still better for me having worked on it. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the poor choice of words. But I think we agree on the end result. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]