Talk:Me and Juliet/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I've made some copyedits; GA Review is to follow.

Reviewer: Dr Aaij (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I am not sure about the cover of the audio recording used in an article about the musical; while this may seem nit-picky, it's better to be safe than sorry. I'm asking an expert.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for expert advice on the image question, and for a response to a comment below.

I really only have two minor quibbles, and it concerns the references.
- a. I like punctuation to end all notes. If the MoS says in strong terms that they are to be left unpunctuated, so be it, but they seem naked to me. Adding a period at the end of each one improves the lay-out.
- b. I note that all books are cited parenthetically in footnotes, but web- and article citations are not. I'd like to see that unified; that is, I'd like all references to be brought into the bibliography and for the notes to be just that, notes referring to entries in the bibliography. Once these two minor things are taken care of (and I have a response for the image question, which won't take long, I'm sure), I will be happy to pass this in flying colors. Thanks to Wehwalt for producing yet another fine article. Dr Aaij (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Regarding the fair use album cover, see the FAC for Allegro (musical). Both of the matters you mention I will take care of. As they involve a little bit of tedious scutwork, they may take me a short time to accomplish. Thank you for the thankless work of a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have some objection, I will put a separate subsection in the bibliography for non-books.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that the image is OK as it is less than 300 x 300. It is possible the fair use rationale may need fine tuning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it will be deemed fine; on the advice of Moonriddengirl I posted a question at WP:NFR. I think all the periods are tackled. If you want to separate "Books" from "Articles" in the bibliography, I don't have a real objection to it, though it's not something I would do. We'll be good to go in a day or two. Thank you, Dr Aaij (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good. I've done that now. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--References are fine. However, consensus at [Wikipedia talk:Non-free content]] seems to be that the image is not OK. I have removed it. Unfortunately, we have no other image at Commons (as far as I could see) that would be appropriate, so we'll have to go without. Still, promotion to GA is valid. Thank you Wehwalt for your patience and for your good work. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]