Talk:Adam Levine/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 00:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

See #7's comments below.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There were some minor flow problems in the intro, but I made a few quick, minor changes to fix them. Beyond that, there is a lot of subject repetition. The word "Levine" comes up way too much in the article, particularly in the intro. "The band" is also used quite often in the Kara's Flowers and Maroon 5 sections.

The Maroon 5 section needs to be split up into two or more paragraphs. The #Other work and Other Ventures seem to sound the same to me. (Some other comments made on #3 could be useful here.)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The Early Life section could use more citations. The first 4 paragraphs of the Other Ventures all have a large paragraph, followed by one citation (with the 4th actually having 2). I looked at the citations provided, and they seem to all be fine.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I have a big problem with Kara's Flowers getting just as much room as Maroon 5. The two bands combined don't get as much as his time on TV. The focus of the article really needs to change. The Maroon 5 section needs to be added to. (There is a whole article for Maroon 5 where stuff can be found for this article.) The #Other Ventures is about the right size- don't cut down on that to make it proportional. I would consider creating one big career section, with Kara's Flowers, Maroon 5, and other work all being subsections, with the business and philanthropy and everything else fitting in under those.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I feel it is good enough.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has the good balance of being consistently added to with new coverage and not being changed too often.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   I am not convinced that the file of Levine playing the guitar's copyright rationale is accurate... I would ask the editors to check in a little more.

I think more images would be helpful. If the Maroon 5 section is added to, another picture would be nice (such as the ones on the Maroon 5 article).

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I do not think that the article meets the criteria... I think it needs a lot of work. However, seeing as much of what I want is already on Wikipedia (somewhere) and that there are several editors who are pretty consistently improving the page, I think it can be fixed.

I will place this article on hold for 1 week. I will (hope fully remember to) check back on the 13th of April, unless editors tell me they want me to re-review it sooner. PrairieKid (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and edit. About expanding the Maroon 5 section: Is it OK for the section to basically be a condensed version of the Maroon 5 article, without focusing on Levine? There isn't a lot he is doing individually as far as Maroon 5 goes, which I think is why the TV and other work he does has more coverage in the article. As for creating a big "career" section, won't that mean the entire article will have just three sections: early life, career and personal life? I really hope that won't be necessary if the Maroon 5 section is expanded. Plus, if this happens, the "other work" section can it stand as it is, without any changes, right? One last thing: do you think anything in Kara's Flowers needs to be cut?

And editors: please edit ALL you can to make this article GA standard in 7 days! :) GinaJay (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I might add to Kara's Flowers a little, actually, if you can find good sources and important information. I think you're right about the section division. I just think the names "Other Work" and "Other Ventures" need to change, but the formatting is good. The Maroon 5 section should focus mainly on Levine. It has been around over 10 years- he has some stuff about Levine. I just felt that was... well, not necessarily more important than the other work- his work on Maroon 5 allowed him to do everything else, so I feel it should be a lot bigger. Add to Maroon 5, get a few images, take out the word "Levine" where appropriate, add a few citations and Adam Levine can be a GA. PrairieKid (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to the Maroon 5 section and tried to add some Levine perspective in each para. Is it up to standard now? "Other ventures" can be changed to "Business ventures" or "Products and endorsements". I think business ventures sounds better but I don't think the ADHD bit is business. Could that be added to personal life? And about the image in the O.V section - how can the copyright rationale be confirmed? GinaJay (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To check back in (I'll finish my review tomorrow), I crossed off everything I think it no longer an issue. I am amazed at how much has gone into this article in the last week or so. The changes yet to be made are minor and I definitely think this will meet GA standard by tomorrow. PrairieKid (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut the extra "levine"s. Now every para has only one Levine, except in some where "he" could be misunderstood or the prose becomes too awkward. Changed "other ventures" to "business ventures and endorsements". Is that fine? That's all I could think of changing for now. GA enough? GinaJay (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'tis GA enough. Really nice work! PrairieKid (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I could still use more refs on the Business Ventures and Endorsements, but it will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrairieKid (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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.