Talk:Wynton Kelly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article seems to comply with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, as well as general layout. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

I'm actually quite pleased by the large and well-used quantity of reliable, published sources cited in this article! I don't see any original research incorporated into the text, either. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article looks like it covers all required aspects of the topic, and nothing seems crufty or excessive. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

With the below discussions resolved, I'm confident that this article checks out for neutrality. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Immediate revision history shows good stability over the past few months. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article does not currently feature any images, so we might as well say that it passes on this one. As you’ll see, I’ve added some shortening to my sig! (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Note: I know it's been a while since I've worked on this review, but I'll need a few more days before I can get back to it. Spring in Wikipedia's lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I'll be around. EddieHugh (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back at last, and I intend to see this review through now. :) Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"He is known for his lively, blues-based playing and as one of the finest accompanists in jazz." Is that bit about being considered "one of the finest accompanists" as neutral as it could be? The use of words might not be a big NPOV deal in this case, or it might be; my proverbial radar picked up on it, so I'd like to make sure. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncontroversial. Further examples: here, here ("Kelly was renowned as an accompanist"), and here. The last is a blog, but mostly quotes specific sources. So, I think that it is NPOV; it's just that the points of view of the sources are so positive!

Thanks for the review. I cut the "album" you added to the lead as that word already appears in that sentence. EddieHugh (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, the article checks out! I apologize once again for the long wait. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]