Talk:Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'll be looking at this. SilkTork *^YES! 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm unclear on how the television play originated. Was Davies approached by someone, or was it his idea? SilkTork *^YES! 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Davies was approached by Granada Television to create the play. I'm currently working on a separate section describing the show, which I'll add to the article if it turns out alright. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• How does this look? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent! Brilliant work - and done very quickly! SilkTork *^YES! 08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hit list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Album covers are acceptable for articles about the album - my understanding of Wikipedia:Non-free content is that the other images from the album cover are only acceptable if there is "critical commentary of that item", and I'm not sure that the cover is appropriately discussed. Image removed until appropriate commentary can be inserted

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Further comments

• Would you look at Wikipedia:Quote#Quotations_and_fair_use to make sure that the block quote from the liner notes in the "Story and theme" section is not excessive. SilkTork *^YES! 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll shorten it and other quotes. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• "he shrugged of my apology" - is this an exact quote? If so please put (sic) after "of" - if not, please correct to "off".
  • Typo. I'll fix it. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not actually required for GA, as the reception section is very detailed regarding contemporary critical response, however, a legacy statement giving current critical views on the album putting it into context would be useful and appreciated.
  • I considered that when I first began work on the article. I'll work on it. I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Andy Miller book (page 133) makes reference to the USA tour being a "shambles", and also that part of the positive critical response to the album in the USA was due to an advertising campaign by Reprise. Is there a reason these aspects are not included in the article? SilkTork *^YES! 10:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • • I'll consider adding them. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Miller also makes some critical comments on the production and overall quality of the album - might it be useful to gather such reflective views as part of a legacy statement - today's critics/commentators looking back on the album to see how it fits into the context of both the Kinks output, and the overall musical output of the Sixties. SilkTork *^YES! 10:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • • What page? - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • End of page 132 to 133: "While Arthur has its share of marvelous songs, the production is more generic than on the previous few Kings albums, and the self-indulgence of late 60's rock has started to impinge on the group's sound..." SilkTork *^YES! 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Rogan also gives his critical overview of the album in "The complete guide to the music of the Kinks" which is useful. Though he disagrees with Miller about the production! SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I don't own Rogan's book, although I've searched it through Google books. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, it can be read in Google Books. I love Google Books! SilkTork *^YES! 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• I am unsure about the use of the picture of the inset of the album. I think this contravenes Fair Use - I have reduced it down to one image which at least shows the main character who is discussed - though I feel there should be more explicit commentary on the inset and the cover in general. SilkTork *^YES! 10:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try to find some sources on the album's packaging, and, if I can locate some, create a separate section for it. It might take me a while. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As that doubt is the only thing actually holding this back from GA, I'll remove the image for now. You can put it back later when you have some commentary. There are still the things we discussed above to improve the article, but I'm satisfied it meets the requirements of the GA criteria as it stands. You could do the additional things mentioned, and then look at the specific FA criteria (alt tags and the like) to see if you can get an FA pass as well. Discrete subjects like albums tend to be easier to get passed the "comprehensive" requirement. It helps to have a Wikipedia:Peer review - though I would suggest you add all the relevant material before doing that. SilkTork *^YES! 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, SilkTork - I wasn't expecting it to be that fast! I appreciate it. I've added a bit to the article - could you tell me what you think about it? I believe acclaimedmusic.net is an RS, as it is used widely throughout Wikipedia (see 2004 in music, 2005 in music). - I.M.S. (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You can check with the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though it is generally accepted that if a site is well respected and well run, and other reliable sources use it, then it would be considered acceptable. I found three books which use the site: [1]. Actually I checked the noticeboard - it's been discussed twice - [2] and [3] - the first time mentions that it is used by three books, and it was accepted, the second (quite recent) time the person asking wasn't aware that it has been used by reliable sources, so it is quite worrying that the outcome was that they planned to create a bot to remove all uses of it as a a RS! From my reading of the site, the guy is taking his information purely from reliable sources. I would say that it is reliable. But it's worth another question at the noticeboard, pointing out the Google Books search. SilkTork *^YES! 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the research, SilkTork. I'll consider posting at RS/N inquiring about it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pass

Meets GA criteria. Passed. SilkTork *^YES! 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)