Jump to content

Talk:Syro/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite records from last year - I'm looking forward to reviewing this :) — sparklism hey! 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
  • There are three repeat links in this section: Drukqs, The Guardian and Rolling Stone
 Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images/media

[edit]
 Done Added rationales. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
 Done - Fixed; added new source Aria1561 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been replaced with this link. I might be missing something, but there's no mention of Syro on that page. — sparklism hey! 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Replaced it with a better source. Aria1561 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which was redone in 2007." How about something like "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which James reworked in 2007"?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " under the same pseudonym" → " under the Caustic Window alias"?
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

[edit]
  • "Syro was nominated for, and subsequently won, a Grammy Award.." → "Syro won a Grammy Award.." because it's just simpler to say it this way
 Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

This is a very high quality article as it stands. I'll be going through everything in depth as part of this review and adding to my comments above, but this is already close to GA status, from what I can see. — sparklism hey! 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking really good. I've got a few (minor) concerns about the prose, which I'm too busy IRL to detail right now - I'll provide some commentary on this over the next day or two. Thanks — sparklism hey! 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this has taken me so long. I've added a couple of points above - I'm not a copyediting expert by any means, but most of what I see seems reasonable enough. I'd recommend taking this to WP:GOCE at some point, but I won't let this get in the way of the GA review. — sparklism hey! 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this as a good article - well done! And also congrats to Idiotchalk, who has been a huge contributor to this article. Thanks — sparklism hey! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reviewing this :) Aria1561 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (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.