Talk:Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 49p (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Thriley (talk · contribs) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 49p (talk · contribs) 05:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs on this, will be reviewing this probably around afer this weekend. Right now, i have done a quick skim for 5, 6a, 6b. 49p (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Good work on here! I only made some small changes but it was very good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No big citations omission i saw. One missing citation
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything seems to be cited, no original information coming.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No big copy vio, but a 41.9% on earwig for the 1992 LA times quote. Consider shortening it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the background of the event, what happened at the event, what happened after the event.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No off-topic paragraphs I could find. Everything seems to be on-topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Gives equal weight to those who opposed O'Connor and those who supported O'Connor.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One non-free image, but the link that was used to get it is dead (gettys). Can be replaced with another link as the image is popular. Otherwise, it's fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only two images, both of O'Connor. They are on topic. I feel like we can add more. I added the Pesci's monologue as it's available from the official SNL youtube page
	7. Overall assessment.

@Thriley: Great work, there's like two thing to do before this is a pass.

See 2d and if you can shorten or paraphrase the quote as Earwig complains about it. (The one about the press conference in London)
There's a citation missing on VH1. I couldn't find a source for it. Remove or add a citations.

If you get these two done, I'll pass it. Once again, excellent work on the article. 49p (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review. I’ll get those done over the next few days. Best, Thriley (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the uncited VH1 sentence. Would it be ok to leave in her long quote from the LA Times? I think it's quite helpful to give such a long statement to give readers insight into her specific reasons for her performance. Thriley (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think in that case it'll be fine. I would preferably move it to a blockquote or some sort but it's fine as it is. Will be passing this 49p (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.