Talk:Woodstock 50/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Doc Strange, this article is informative and very well written. I think the headline in the Rolling Stone piece (citation #13) says it all about the project: a disaster.

It's a relatively short article (just 2389 words) with a limited scope owing to the cancellation of the event so a single paragraph summary to begin is fine and complies with MOS:LEAD. I made a few small amendments including the removal of four redlinks. If there is a good chance of those turning blue in the near future, assuming the performers are notable, then by all means restore the links. In the overview, I added some more 1969 associations in the same vein as the Grateful Dead one.

This is a very good article and I've no hesitation in promoting it to GA. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2020 (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.