Talk:Let It Down/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks again for your work on all things Harrison! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Khazar2, I'm so glad you could take this on. I'd been planning to give the article a good read-through (but got sidetracked on another one), so it might be an idea to give me a day or so, to save you time? Up to you – I'm just grateful it's up for review at last! Best, JG66 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--that'd work great. I've got a few others on my plate to work on in the meantime. Why don't you just post here when you're ready? I'm in no rush. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fab. Will do. JG66 (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khazar2, thanks for your patience. It's certainly been more than the promised "day or two", but ready when you are. I think I could probably keep tinkering about for another day ... but what the article needs now is a fresh pair of eyes! JG66 (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great-- I hope to tackle it later this morning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Whitlock also claims that it was" -- probably best to say "states" here, or "according to Whitlock" or some such per WP:WTW
The copyright status of the YouTube interview [1] isn't clear; this should probably be delinked unless we can clarify that this isn't posted in violation of someone's copyright.

Other than those two points, this looks great so far--extremely well-written, well-sourced, and thorough. I still need to do some source checks to verify accuracy and completeness, but this seems quite close to ready for promotion. More later today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those two points you mentioned, and one or two other things along the way. With that YouTube interview, I've got part of it in a book somewhere ... but the citation there already supports the point. Thanks! JG66 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Possible copyright issue with YouTube link per WP:YOUTUBE.~~ Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues in prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Very minor WTW issue with "claims"~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA