Talk:Mandatory Fun/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Masem:A few issues:

File:World October revolution poster.jpg = Needs informatiom template filled out at Commons.
File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg = missing Flickr review at Commons.
I formatted the image page of the one fair use image.

Once above is addressed, next on to stability review. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: I've fixed the poster image, and tagged the Lorde one for a flickr bot check (though clearly should be okay). --MASEM (t) 01:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and yeah hopefully should be fine. Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem:Problem at File:Lorde in Seattle 2013 -1.jpg, you'll probably have to get a manual review from a Flickr Reviewer. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: Well, hmmm. I followed the link and found the original photo in the photostream, uncropped which has a the photographer's name as a watermark and is copyrighted on flickr as (C). And checking that commons user account, that and one other Lorde photo was uploaded and that's it, and that seems odd for a photographer that is selling photos to do that. I might have to ditch that image here due to lack of clarity. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: With the image in question removed, rest of the Image review is now fine. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, image was deleted at Commons. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Article edit history = I'm seeing some unsourced no-edit-summary IP changes -- have those been checked individually as okay?
Talk page history = no issues there.

@Masem:Just the one above question, if you could respond, below? — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt, checking from the August 15 date (when I put this for GA2), the IP edits are fine (one was edit warring w/ reverts, but the others are AGF additions and not problematic). --MASEM (t) 01:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. Stability review is fine. Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

@Masem:Suggest you could add this and all related song articles to WP:Comedy as I see the artist is already in there too, as they're all forms of satire and parody. Also could add Portal:Comedy and Portal:Music. — Cirt (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added on appropriate points. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will get to rest of review soon. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 6, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good throughout, there is a little bit too much usage of longer sentences that could be split up, or overusage of commas, etc, stuff like that, suggest going for WP:GOCE and peer review and soliciting help from editors previously uninvolved with the article for copy editing this stuff. Otherwise good and well-written.

2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout. One bare link at ref 38 needs to be formatted properly with WP:CITE and WP:CIT templates. Strongly recommend archiving all web links with archivedate= and archiveurl= parameters to Internet Archive.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects and is broad in scope and breath, for sure.

4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutral tone and written in a matter-of-fact way.

5. Stable? See above, no issues here.

6. Images?: See above, no issues here.

Just please fix that one bare link at ref 38 and get some copy editors. :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got the bare ref fixed. Other steps will be done in time, I'm sure. :) Thank you! --MASEM (t) 18:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]