Talk:Nothing in Common (Thompson Twins song)
(Redirected from Talk:Nothing In Common (Thompson Twins song))
 | Nothing in Common (Thompson Twins song) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 17, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Nothing In Common (Thompson Twins song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Generally I like to be quite positive in any reviews I give, but unfortunately this has to be a fail. This is obviously a drive-by nomination, as it was put forward by a user who had not previously edited the article. Presently it is a start-class article, with little information about the subject beyond a few lines of text. Having said that, what is there is quite neutral, so if it were expanded with some more content it may well fair better next time. I don't feel inclined to give an in-depth review of there's little to review. But I will add brief comment in the sections below. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is factually accurate and everything appears to be sourced.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Not really. The text consists of three fairly short paragraphs, one of which is the lead.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- What's there is fairly neutral.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- The handful of contributions in the edit history suggest no serious problems on that score.
- 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):
- Illustrated by two images, both of different versions of the record sleeve. In an expanded version of this it might be nice to see an example of the group performed the song at a concert. Perhaps also an audio sample of it so others can hear what it sounds like.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Fail. Simply not in-depth enough to be a GA nomination, so there's no choice but to fail it really. Perhaps those who contributed to the article might like to use this review as a basis on which to improve the article. Also I'd suggest putting it through peer review if it is expanded. It's always a useful process. Finally, take a look at Bohemian Rhapsody as an example of what to include in a song-related Good Article and how to lay it out. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fail. Simply not in-depth enough to be a GA nomination, so there's no choice but to fail it really. Perhaps those who contributed to the article might like to use this review as a basis on which to improve the article. Also I'd suggest putting it through peer review if it is expanded. It's always a useful process. Finally, take a look at Bohemian Rhapsody as an example of what to include in a song-related Good Article and how to lay it out. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
