Talk:A Very Gaga Thanksgiving/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by IndianBio in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I shall review it tomorrow. -- Frankie talk 21:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "for purchase from the iTunes Store" – wiki-link iTunes Store.
- In the infobox, de-link English and United States.
- File:James A Burden House.jpg needs alternative text.
- As WP:OVERLINKING advises against linking of "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions", de-link New York City in Productions section.
- References from Vulture.com should read as Vulture.com but should be piped to New York (magazine)
- Where are the publishers ref 8, 9, 10.
- De-link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 10 to avoid overlinking.
- Is Fashionetc a good source to use?
- The Newsweek Daily Beast Company in ref 15 should be in parenthesis to maintain consistency.
- Idolator is a web source, so don't italicize it in ref 17. Also, I am not sure about its use.
- What makes Cinema Blend a high quality source?
- As TV by the Numbers is a web source, do not italicize it in ref 20 and 22.
- Mention the publishers for ref 24, 25, 26, 27. Also, de-link the last ref as it's already wiki-linked in the very first source.
- As International Business Times is an online news publication, it should be in italics.
- Avoid WP:SHOUTING in references.
- Wiki-link Billboard and mention its publisher in ref 32. -- Frankie talk 09:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fr B., will address the concerns shortly, but first see {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". It has become a depreciated parameter now. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I would not have mentioned it, but you have added publishers to magazines and newspapers e.g. ref 1 (Katharine Weymouth), 11 (Fairchild Fashion Group). In this case, either remove the publishers from these references, or add them in all of the references to maintain consistency. -- Frankie talk 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes yes I was gonna remove all. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- FrB.TG, take a look now? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes yes I was gonna remove all. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I would not have mentioned it, but you have added publishers to magazines and newspapers e.g. ref 1 (Katharine Weymouth), 11 (Fairchild Fashion Group). In this case, either remove the publishers from these references, or add them in all of the references to maintain consistency. -- Frankie talk 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fr B., will address the concerns shortly, but first see {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}. "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals. Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work". It has become a depreciated parameter now. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
All good now except Fashion Etc; is it a good source to use? -- Frankie talk 14:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- FrB.TG, I replaced the source with three other magazine sources. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 15:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)