Talk:Turning Tables/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Paul MacDermott (talk · contribs) 12:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This is my first attempt at a GA review, so please bear with me if I mess anything up. As far as I can tell there are no deadlinks or links to disambiguation pages. Further comments below. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- Prose, lead and layout all fairly good. Reasonable length for GA. Have corrected a couple of typos, but apart from that it seems fine. I think you might consider relocating the "Broadway worthy" part in the lead to the part that talks about how the song was received as this appears to be someone's view, but that shouldn't prevent it from becoming a Good Article.
- Prose, lead and layout all fairly good. Reasonable length for GA. Have corrected a couple of typos, but apart from that it seems fine. I think you might consider relocating the "Broadway worthy" part in the lead to the part that talks about how the song was received as this appears to be someone's view, but that shouldn't prevent it from becoming a Good Article.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- Well referenced and citations appear throughout. A spot check of references confirms accuracy, and no evidence of original research. I note a ref in the lead. While this isn't a problem with GA, it would have to be removed if the article were to go forward to FAC. Generally the lead should be an overview of the article's main points, and the argument goes that everything in the main body of the text should be referenced, so refs in the lead are not necessary.
- Well referenced and citations appear throughout. A spot check of references confirms accuracy, and no evidence of original research. I note a ref in the lead. While this isn't a problem with GA, it would have to be removed if the article were to go forward to FAC. Generally the lead should be an overview of the article's main points, and the argument goes that everything in the main body of the text should be referenced, so refs in the lead are not necessary.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- Article gives a broad perspective on the subject, with background and detail when necessary.
- Article gives a broad perspective on the subject, with background and detail when necessary.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- No issues regarding neutrality.
- No issues regarding neutrality.
- It is stable.
- While the main Adele article has been protected for several months due to issues, this article has been stable for several months with no major problems with edit wars or vandalism.
- While the main Adele article has been protected for several months due to issues, this article has been stable for several months with no major problems with edit wars or vandalism.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- A number of images are used to illustrate the subject, all of which appear to be stable. Also an audio sample, which is useful for anyone who may be unfamiliar with the song.
- A number of images are used to illustrate the subject, all of which appear to be stable. Also an audio sample, which is useful for anyone who may be unfamiliar with the song.
- Overall:
- Pass: This is an interesting article in which the author has invested a lot of work, and I have no hesitation in passing it. I think the lead would have to be expanded if this was to go forward to FAC at any future point, but I don't think this is a problem for GA. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Pass: This is an interesting article in which the author has invested a lot of work, and I have no hesitation in passing it. I think the lead would have to be expanded if this was to go forward to FAC at any future point, but I don't think this is a problem for GA. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)