Talk:Tipitina/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 07:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since this is a short article with no reviewer in a while, I'll handle the duty myself. We should be done quickly.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

The lead doesn't require citations if the information is already referenced in the body of the text (which is the case).
The description "historically significant song" kinda pushes towards WP:PEACOCK. Have you considered just Tipitina is a song written by...
- Is this set of edits better?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess that will do the work.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, avoid clauses like "a legend of New Orleans music". There are others more "neutral" descriptions like noted/prominent musician, etc.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The song was originally only a local hit in New Orleans. Otherwise, the song was not a hit.—If I understood well, after its release, the song became a hit only in New Orleans, but it was not that successful in the rest of the United States? I suggest some re-wording here, because this could be easily misinterpreted.
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2011 National Recording Registry list included the song."—Doesn't "In 2011, the song was included in the National Recording Registry" read better? And don't forget to link National Recording Registry.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"According to some sources"—I think the source should be explicitly credited, if that's John Crosby, I guess.
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a cite is needed for Scorsese's cover.
- Ref added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is required for the version of Bo Dollis & The Wild Magnolias
- Reffed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Since all the improvements regarding the prose were done, I'll evaluate the article according to the GA criteria. The text is understandable and well referenced, so that's first criteria fulfilled. Broad in its coverage–since the song is historically significant, I guess you'll have to do a major expanding if you want to bring this to FA, but as far as the good article criteria go, this article would make it. Except for the single cover, which usage is justified, there isn't any non-free material used. Congratulation, the article passes.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]