Talk:John Koerner/GA1

GA Review

Passed. E_F⁵ 14:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Mehendri Solon (talk · contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 12:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reveiwing this momentarily. Apologies in advance if I do mess something up, I am also relatively new to the process. Sir MemeGod  12:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See below.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Good here, although I would suggest emphasizing on who Ian Anderson is in the lede.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
The only issue is that a "Bibliography" section with sources is missing, if you need help with this feel free to ask. Also see below for an example.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
All sources appear to be reliable, "Allmusic" is marginally reliable but should be fine here.

C. It contains no original research:
"and with Glover on the concert album Live @ The 400 Bar in 2009." is missing a source.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
A 66.5% copyvio ratio is found with RecordCollectorMag, although it appears to be properly-cited quotes.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No issues.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No issues here either.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Seems to be fine after a read-over.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No recent edit warring or major changes.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both pieces of media are taken by users, so the licensing is proper.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No issues.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few issues need cleared up.

Bibliography example

Sources

Dylan, Bob (July 7, 2011). Chronicles, Volume One. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-85720-958-0.

For the prose issue, I suggest adding a "{{clear}}" template at the end of the "Awards and recognition" so that the image doesn't cut off the next header. Same with the "Music career" section. Pinging nominator @Mehendri Solon:. :) Sir MemeGod  12:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will get to work on making those improvements. Mehendri Solon (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehendri Solon, @Sir MemeGod, reminder ping (checking in because the backlog drive has finished). -- asilvering (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. I have not forgotten about this but I have been busy with work projects and have not been able to devote the necessary time, but I intend to return to this as soon as I can. Mehendri Solon (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. It's fine if the nom runs for a little longer, but after a certain point it may fails for inactivity reasons. :) Sir MemeGod _chat 17:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5, @Mehendri Solon, this review should probably be wrapped up or closed for inactivity in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. I will do what I can to move it forward ASAP. Sorry for the delay. Mehendri Solon (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the article when you have a chance. I believe I have addressed all the questions raised. I am not at all sure if I've formatted the Sources section correctly, but I did my best and would appreciate guidance on making it better. Mehendri Solon (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. The sources section usually goes under the references, but I have fixed that as it isn't really a big deal. Great job! E_F⁵ 14:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.