Talk:Ysbeidiau Heulog/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –Chase (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fail criteria

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

This article doesn't meet any of the quick-fail criteria, so I will now assess this article by the good article criteria.

Good article criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • "If there's any song that doesn't sum up [Mwng] it's ["Ysbeidiau Heulog"!]" Change this to "If there's any song that doesn't sum up [Mwng] it's ['Ysbeidiau Heulog']!" Done
   • The accolades table could easily be transferred to prose in the critical response section. Done Have left the table though as it sits better with other SFA single articles.

   Neither of these have been addressed. Also, when the table content is transferred into prose, it will not need to be there (tables are generally not used for a lone achievement). –Chase (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, I must have forgot to hit 'submit'. Changed now. I disagree about the table though I'm afraid. Tables can be used to display material in a particular way alongside mentions in the prose (see chart position table for example) Cavie78 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Chart tables are not necessary when there is only one chart appearance. There is only one achievement here so the table is not necessary. –Chase (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   I can only say that I disagree. I think this is a personal issue rather than something that's required to pass GA. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

   Since you refuse to change this and it's not a part of the GA criteria, I suppose it can stay to pass this GAN. I still think it's unnecessary and if you were to nominate this for FA, other editors would likely tell you the same thing. –Chase (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Remove italicization from non-print media in the references (BBC, Allmusic, etc.).

   Do you mean in the references section itself? As far as I know its not possible to do this as the template auto formats references in italics.

   You can add italics around the non-print media, for example: ''Allmusic''. –Chase (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks, didn't know you could do this, will get on it Cavie78 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   I've asked another user about this and we're of the opinion that excessive use of code is not desirable and that the formatting of references in such a way in the reference section itself is not mandatory - the template itself auto formats references into italics rather than allowing the user to use Wiki markup. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

   I disagree, but this is not a major issue. –Chase (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

   • Much of the musical structure section is unsourced.

   The source is the song itself, I don't believe it needs to be sourced further as it is merely descriptive.

   That is called original research, which we do not condone here on Wikipedia. –Chase (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   It's not original research it's a description with the song as the source. See the 'Works of fiction' section here

   The works of fiction section does not apply here. Songs are not fiction. –Chase (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Not to mention, that page is an essay which explicitly states, "This page is not policy, and should not be applied as if it were." –Chase (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   I think you've misunderstood my point. I was using the essay to show where I'm coming from not as a justification in its own right. The primary source of the section is the song itself backed up by the musical score book which I cite which provides information about chords, naming of sections of the song as 'chorus' etc. It is a 'musical structure' section not a 'musical style' section - I am not comparing the song to the work of another group, giving my own opinion about it or drawing any conclusions, I am merely describing it in a way that any reasonable person could simply by listening to the song itself. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

   Fine. I don't get how this couldn't be resolved with a simple citation to piano/vocal/guitar arrangements but looking at the section more closely, it seems most of this doesn't need a citation. –Chase (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold for one week so that improvements can be made to the article. If my comments are not addressed by then, I will fail this article's GAN. –Chase (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Comments have been addressed or discussed, seems fine to promote this to GA now. –Chase (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)