Talk:Twice Through the Heart/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 2 images, both WPCommons-hosted, one claims public domain, the other Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Notes
- For the References, there are templates to assist you {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}. Please make ref 1 & 2 & 15 consistent with the other formats, in ref 17 "accessed" is not necessary if there is no url, and include the publisher in ref 18. Include the |accessdate= parameter for the url in ref 8.
- Don't put citations in the title (move ref 13 out of the section title).
- Reference 25 -Nicholas Williams "Classical review: London Sinfonietta, QEH: Farewells with violence", The Independent, has the wrong url link (it goes to The Daily Telegraph).
- Thank you for the review. I have acted on all the recommendations except:
- I have preferred not to use the citation templates. I have instead reviewed the footnotes again, trying to make the format consistent on capitalisation, italics, date format etc and in the process ficing a couple of spelling errors. I believe the notes are now in order.
- On 17, I added in the url rather than remove the access date.
- I have also reworked the lead slightly, preferring two paragraphs now and put the publisher's description ahead of ENO's.
- Thanks again for looking at this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. The refs look good and consistent now. maclean (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)