Talk:Yol Aularong/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

Nominator: Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Will review this! Comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Interesting topic I must say, I like his singing style. Arconning (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Arconning: Thanks for reviewing! Two quick notes: first, just linking a comment about this nom on the talk page, acknowledging a little bit of self-consciousness in the nom. :) Second, I'm headed to a conference tomorrow, so probably won't be able to follow up until early next week. Just a heads up. Cheers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites Noted. :) Arconning (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites I've made a minor copy-edit, hope these can be addressed. Ping me once you're back, I'll give you around 7 days to fix the issues. :) Arconning (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

• I don't have any issues, just wondering if that country's rock scene of the 1960s and 70s. could be changed to the country's rock scene of the 1960s and 70s. ?
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Biography

• he stood out from the typical Cambodian pop music of the time, I'm guessing this is sourced to the documentary?
  • Yes -- it's not a quote, of course, but the sentence tries to summarize both what was in the doc and that Yee source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• The 2015 documentary film Don't Think I've Forgotten,, this was released in 2014.
  •  Done good catch — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• which profiles Aularong, recounts an exchange between Aularong and the prince, which prince?
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• a great deal of the information , this is a bit informal it should probably be changed.
  •  Done changed to "much" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Mention about the Cambodian royal family should be wikilinked.
  •  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Musical style

• Just a question, even when the music itself was more serious. Does this mean the topic or the tone of the songs?
  •  Done reworded — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Legacy

• Just wondering, if "romvong" is a proper noun it should be capitalized.
  • It's a good question. Our article, romvong, is inconsistent but most of the instances I found online were not capitalized and I assumed default to genre names not being proper nouns. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Media

• Both media used are on a fair use licenses which qualifies.

Refs

• Since there's a few sources I'm gonna do an in depth source review.

1. Considering it's a documentary that heavily focuses on the topic, it's alright.
2. Soundtracks aren't really reliable sources so that should probably be replaced.

   It's the liner notes of the documentary's soundtrack, written by the people who made the documentary. IMO it would be just as reliable as the documentary content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

   @Rhododendrites Last comment, just wondering if you could make the citation style of this consistent with the others? You could use Template:Cite AV media notes :)) Arconning (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

   @Arconning: ah, yes. that's better. :)  Done — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

3. Broadway Box, this looks like a ticket-selling site for Broadway productions but this certain article looks okay? Happy to talk about it's reliability though.

• • Seems good at a second glance based on the claim.

1. Guardian, alright
2. NYT, alright
3. HuffPost, alright
4. Twin Cities Daily Planet, seems alright.
5. ReBeat, alright.
6. Conditional pass on this source considering it's an academic repository.
7. WFMU, this is a blog which isn't reliable as it's user-generated content.

   I'd push back on this and argue it's more of a WP:NEWSBLOG -- an official blog from someone at the radio station. It's a well-known radio station that specializes in relatively obscure music. It's not ideal, true, it's not user-generated and it's only used for the track identification (I removed the second instance as unnecessary), and it seems more reliable to use than the alternatives -- discogs, etc. which are indeed user-generated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

8. AllMusic, conditional pass again.
9. Public Culture, alright.
10. American Way, this looks like a blog though I'm not entirely sure as it states it was originally posted on the magazine.

    I think it's safe to call it a blog. The author has a long-time culture/music/arts journalist/writer, so it's an WP:EXPERTSPS. Similar to the WFMU blog, it should be marginally reliable, even if it's not the most ideal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

11. Diplomat, nice.
12. Discogs isn't a reliable source as it's user-generated content.

     Done Yes, fair. I thought it was usable for the basic claim of existence, but from WP:DISCOGS it looks like I was wrong. I couldn't find a replacement, so I removed that line. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Earwig seems okay.

Misc

• No ongoing edit war, focused, and broad information considering there's limited info about the subject, neutral.

• @Arconning: Thanks for the review. Found some downtime to go through this -- I think I've fixed or responded to everything above. Happy to revisit if there's anything else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.