Talk:Rockism and poptimism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject matter. If there are no objections, I'll put together a review for this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, great work. There are a few prose issues that I shall bring up, but on the whole I think that this should pass with some alterations.

"that artists who do not paint or sculpt are not artists" - perhaps the latter should be "truly artists" or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this article is titled properly. It is called "rockism" but the majority of the article's text is actually about "Poptism". Perhaps this article would be better framed under the title of "Rockism and Poptism" and the lede re-orientated to explore both. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above two suggestions; I've moved it to Rockism and poptimism.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that this article relies heavily upon direct quotation, which is generally cautioned against. I would recommend taking about a third of these quotations and simply paraphrasing them in your own words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to condense the quotes a bit.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of sourcing is fairly good, although there are no academic sources cited, and the links need to be standardised (for instance, why are some web pages archived, others not; some contain a retrieval date, others not; the style of dates differs etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are now consistent; some web pages are archived because the original urls don't work anymore.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this meets with the GA criteria, so will pass it as such. However, I would recommend sending it to Peer Review as I think that the prose could be straightened out a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]