Talk:Lithium (Nirvana song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough

This looks very strong on first pass: well-written, well-sourced, and covering the main aspects of the topic. Only one comment so far:

"Cobain blew his voice out" -- seems just a touch informal; might fall under an idiom to be rewritten per WP:WTA.

I skipped to the relevant portion on the documentary to review it and rephrased accordingly. Also added the modifier "According to Vig", because in the documentary he says "I think it was on 'Lithium' . . ." so wanted to indicated that it wasn't hard fact, just to the best of his recollection. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 31 January 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.	Prose is clear. Sources are not accessible through Google Books search, but happy to accept per AGF. (Later note: Spotchecks against Azerrad in Amazon showed no evidence of copyright issues.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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--nice work on this.