Talk:XTC/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Christine (talk · contribs) 17:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, what the heck, I'll take this on.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well-written, in good Queen's English. I think that it relies a bit too much on quotes. I suggest that you go through and paraphrase more. I'm not requiring it for GAN, but if you want to go further with this article, it's something that you should at least consider.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Follows the standard structure of a music article. But wow, this is a long article, but comparable to other articles about other major bands.
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:
I don't have the offline resources you use, but I'm willing to AGF that they're okay. You rely on some sources a lot; for example, ref15. I'm assuming that you weren't able to find more variety in your sources, although you use a lot. This is a very extensively well-researched article. Watch the quotes punctuation, as per MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I won't bother checking them for you, but I suggest that you make sure they'll accurate. Picky, I know, that usually that's a good sign that the article is well-done. You also don't include accessdates for your on-line sources; please add them.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Speaking of ref15, I just ran this article from the copyvio tool, and it was over 90%, probably because of your use of quotes. Paraphrasing will resolve this, so please go through and wherever appropriate, cut down on the quotes.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Very thorough and complete.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article is obviously written by fans, of course, but remains neutral nonetheless.

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
This article is actively edited, even since its GAN, but things seem to be collegial and civil.
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:
Images are good. Are they any more you can use? For example, are there any available images of the individual band members? Or how about downloading some of their album cover images? (That's standard for music articles, you know.) I like, though, how you've used quoteboxes and clips.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
See below for more suggestions.

Ref20: It's standard to specify the time at which the event occurs in audio clips, as per WP:PAGENUM.
Ref24: I don't see any support for the statement in the source. Since this is a GAN, I'm not going to go through every source and check that your refs correctly support your statements. I'll leave it up to you if you want to check it for this review; just know that if you take it to FAC, they'll look for it more than here.
Ref46: The long quote in the Financial issues... section is a good example of what I say above. I think you could paraphrase it.
Local popularity... section: ""Their aspire to attain the impossible dream..." Should it be "they", or is that following the source? If it's the later, add [sic].

More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oranges and Lemons... section: Briefly-serving XTC manager Tarquin Gotch... Please explain what you mean by "briefly-serving". Could you say something like: "Tarquin Gotch, who served as XTC's manager for a short time [x months or weeks]..."
Strike period: Coincidentally, Prince and George Michael also went on strike against their respective labels, which was heavily publicised at the time. XTC's strike received little press by comparison. I'd think that Prince's and Michael's strikes were ironic, not coincidental. But it's opinionizing, which other than not being a real word isn't encouraged in encyclopedic writing. How about: "Prince and George Michael also went on strike against their respective labels at about the same time, and were heavily publicised at the time. XTC's strike, however, received little press."
Most of the other suggestions I have regarding the prose is how to cut out all the quotes you use. I'd like you to do some more paraphrasing. I think that it fulfills the GA criteria with them, but I think it'd improve the quality of the article substantially if you do. As I say above, you won't get much farther in the review process if you don't.

Deal with the few things above and I'll pass to GA. Thanks to all who contributed to such a detailed article about an important group. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this, plus I wanted to give you plenty of time to cut your quotes and paraphrase. I see that you've worked hard to improve this articles in this area. You could probably do more, but I think it's adequate for GA and I'll let the good folks at FAC, if you choose to take it there, can give you more specific suggestions. Nice work, I will pass to GA now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]