Jump to content

Talk:Moby/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time

Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments on GA criteria

[edit]
Pass
Query
  • There are a lot of similar images - see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, a GA criteria. Unless there is appropriate rationale for all those images, I suspect a good number could be removed. And that may help with WP:LAYOUT, another GA criteria, as the images are not laid out per image layout guidelines.
Some captions do not meet the guidelines at WP:CAP, another GA criteria, and may need tidying up. The most questionable caption is the one for the image in the Charity section, and that image may be one that is considered for removal anyway, so that may solve that caption issue. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links come under Layout, which is part of the GA criteria. I'm querying the use of the Discogs and IMDB links. Wikipedia has a Moby discography, so why are readers being directed to Discogs from this page? If it is felt to have useful information that cannot be contained in Moby discography, then wouldn't that page be a more appropriate place to have the link, than this one? And what essential reliable information does IMDB have that isn't or cannot be contained on this page? SilkTork' ✔Tea time 13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed; All unrefed, and I doubt it would be useful referencing it all. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of very short sections, and also short paragraphs. In the "2005–2008: Hotel, Last Night, and other work" section there is a series of one sentence paragraphs. This looks untidy and unprofessional, and inhibits the flow of reading. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 13:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done hopefully... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What have you done? SilkTork' ✔Tea time 14:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • There are a number of unsourced statements that are challengeable; example: "In 1991 and 1992 he remixed The B-52s, The Prodigy, Orbital, Pet Shop Boys, Erasure, Michael Jackson, and Ten City." The 1982 to 1985 "Music career" section is unsourced. "Until around June 2009, Moby co-owned a small restaurant and tea shop called Teany, where he occasionally would wait tables. He also organized a group of artists known as the Little Idiot Collective. Moby lives a vegan lifestyle and supports animal rights." While not everything is expected to be sourced, there are statements here that do need sourcing. On the whole it is better to source than not to source. information for this and every other article needs to be verifiable, so the information has to comke from somewhere. It is always easier to source as the information is being added, as it is presumed the editor adding the information has the source in front of them. While rough guidelines such as "there should be a cite for at least every paragraph" can be criticised as being a little too crude, at least it is preferable to there being no cites at all, and the reader left with no reassurance that the information is reliable. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 13:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research is when statements are made in an article that are assumed by the editors, and not directly supported by sources. "the music media ... struggled to comprehend the artist's new electronic music and refused to take it very seriously" is an example of that. The source - HitQuarters (HitQuarters) does not say that - though I can understand how it would be inferred. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a biography section and a personal life section, but no legacy or musicianship type section - see Chuck_Berry#Legacy, Courtney_Love#Musicianship, and George_Harrison#Musicianship for examples. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
@SilkTork: any progress? --Mdann52talk to me! 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, and apologies for the delay. I have some time today, and my intention is to progress on the GANs I still have out - including looking at this one. There's a few more ArbCom matters I have yet to get through, then I'll be free. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No rush; I just wanted to make sure this had not "fallen into a void". --Mdann52talk to me! 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that can happen, and a ping is a good idea. I'm just having some chow mein flavoured food and looking at the Chow mein article while doing so. After which I'll be working on the GANs. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 11:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stopping the review now. This article needs a fair bit of work. At the moment some information has been collected and placed on the page, but the information needs sorting, as some information is trivial, and odd "He was interviewed by Lucy Walker for a chapter in Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture (The MIT Press, 2008) edited by Paul D. Miller a.k.a. DJ Spooky". The prose is unclear - "...Moby decided to release a punk rock album. Released in 1996, Animal Rights..." Are we to assume that he did or did not release the punk album? Are we to assume that the album in the next sentence is that punk album, or that he changed his mind and released a different album? This is just an example. Fixing this by itself, would not address similar lack of clarity in the article. The article has information, but information, such as his musicianship and legacy, is missing. This is an article at the early stages. It feels like random information has been put into the article at different times and of different quality. Some sourced. Some not sourced. But there is no unity or control. What is needed is for someone (or a group of people) to work on the article to bring it to GA standards (see WP:GA?), and then to nominate it again. I am always willing to help out on an article where people are prepared to do some work, but at the moment this one needs a bit too much work for me. It looks like it needs building up from scratch. I will, however, keep this review open for at least a week to see what progress is being made. If I see positive progress, I'll keep it open longer, and may even join in to help out. But this does need more than a little bit of a tidy up. It need a solid overhaul. I'll pop back in seven days to see what's going on. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 14:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay - I've been busy elsewhere. I should have time to read over what's been done and hopefully close the review this weekend. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article would benefit from a copy edit. If it was just a bit here and there I would do it myself, but the whole article needs a good scrub. You can ask someone else to do it. Try asking someone at Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is still a good way from being ready to be listed. Though some work has been done there are a number of significant issues that haven't been addressed. As some work has been done I will keep the review open for a little while longer. I will look back after seven days to see what progress has been made, and we can discuss then if it is worth keeping the review open any longer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moby/GA1&oldid=1077619700"