Talk:Ville Valo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 23:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving this article a Review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Everything looks good. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I think so but am taking another look before I give this criteria a "yes". Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the subject but it goes into too much detail about Every. Single. Step. in Ville Valo's career, all his various health crises and so on. These matters could be summarized in the lead and then dealt with in more detail in the main body of the article. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
~~Refs #26 & #89 are both deadlines.~~ Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This parameter has been taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
I am waiting for Ref 26 & 89 to be adjusted before I can proceed with this parameter. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All clear. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool - no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Stays focused on the artists while giving the various happenings - bands, records, concerts - background. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
For the most part, yes, the only issue of concern at this point is the lead section (see below).
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit warring - yay! Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All the permissions are correct. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nicely-done article about a musician I had honestly never heard of before. Going forward, the article will benefit from continuing updates as the musician & his band release new material, go on tours etc. I do think the personal life section could possibly do with some trimming - to me some of the get-together/break-up content verges on the trivial but that is a matter of editorial preference. Shearonink (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: The aforementioned dead links have been removed and replaced. SilverBullitt (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much better. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

@SilverBullitt: The lead section needs to be edited to come more in line with the MOS:INTRO parameters. Other than that this article looks pretty much good to go. I will be giving it a readthrough over the next day or so to see if I've missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: The lead section has been altered, hopefully it's now better. SilverBullitt (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverBullitt: The editing you have just done is fine but I think I am not explaining my concerns about the lead section very well here. When I said to come more into line with the MOS:INTRO parameters I was thinking more along its parameter of:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
Plus... The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. (from MOS:BEGIN)

So, working towards a summary, here are a couple of things the reader doesn't need to know from the lead:

that Vallo went to Promises Rehab. For summary purposes, it seems to me that what's important is that he was an addict and got treatment.
that the hiatus was caused by drummer Gas Lipstick's nerve damage.

Also, the following are mentioned in the lead but do not appear in the main text:

that Valo has a baritone voice
that his vocal range is the eight-highest
that he was ranked Number 80 as a metal vocalist by Hit Parader

To see what I mean, maybe take a look at other WP:GAs about musicians and bands like Junya Nakano, Juha Vainio, Dr. Dre, Röyksopp, and so on. If you wish to look through the WP:GAs on musicians they are all listed at: WP:GA/MU#Other music articles under Performers, groups, composers, and other music people. Hope I explained my concerns about the lead section being a summary a little better this time around Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I've taken note of the suggestions you gave and looked at other WP:GAs about musicians and bands, and altered the lead section to be more akin to those. Hopefully this is more of what you are looking for. SilverBullitt (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - you might even want to tweak it a little and add more summaries of important content that appear in the main body. One thought about the Lead I've read recently is to do the main body first and then take the most important points from the main content to craft the lead section (a lot of editors tend to do it the other way around and write the Lead first). Shearonink (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]