Talk:Invisible Circles/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Lewismaster in topic 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.
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "...whose musical tastes had strongly influenced the sound of their first work Prison of Desire and their successful second offering Decipher" ---> "...whose musical tastes had strongly influenced the sound of their first work Prison of Desire (2000) and their successful second offering Decipher (2001)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Do the same in the Background section. In the Background section, "These musical differences lead to Mark Jansen leaving the band" ---> "These musical differences led to Mark Jansen leaving the band". In the Concept and storyline section, "The birth of a baby girl destroys in the mother her hopes of career and passion", a word is missing between "of" and "career". In the Tour section, "...and Borgman was back behind his drum kit for the final leg of the Invisible Circles tour in South America, in August 2005", the comma is not needed after "South America".- Done, Done, Rephrased, and Done.
- Check.
- Done, Done, Rephrased, and Done.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, "It was released on March 25, 2004 by the small Dutch label Transmission Records" ---> "It was released on March 25, 2004, by the small Dutch label Transmission Records", commas after dates, if using MDY. Same section, you have "symphonic metal" linked twice, you just need it linked once. In the Tour section, "The Pinkpop Festival performance on May 30, 2004 was televised for a Dutch TV station" ---> "The Pinkpop Festival performance on May 30, 2004, was televised for a Dutch TV station".- Done, Done, and Done.
- Check.
- Done, Done, and Done.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The link titles in References 50 and 52 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- Fixed capitalization
- The link titles in References 50 and 52 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- Are "ProgVisions.net", "FaceCulture", and "The Dutch Progressive Rock Page" reliable sources?
- About the sources:
- FaceCulture.tv ---> In my search for Dutch sources for the article, I found this site which produces and hosts a large number of video interviews to artists and musicians of every genre and is a spin-off of the general site FaceCulture.nl. The interviews are both in English and in Dutch and are conducted by freelance journalists, not related to the subject of the interview. [1] Moreover, the facts related in the video interview are largely verifiable through other sources indicated in the references section. I think that all this qualifies the source as reliable.
- The Dutch Progressive Rock Page ---> DPRP.net is by far the most important Dutch site about Progressive Rock in activity since 1995. It hosts thousands of reviews and interviews to rock bands of every nationality. DPRP team of contributors comprises journalists and musicians coming mainly from the Netherlands and the UK, not related to the subject of the article. The DPRP references were used in the article to show the variety of opinions about the band and the album and I think that they qualify as reliable and independent.
- ProgVision.net ---> ProgVision.net is a Spanish web site dedicated to Progressive Rock, active from 2000 to 2004.[2] It contains many reviews of albums and concerts held in Spain. The source examined relates of a 2002 concert of After Forever and expresses an opinion about their performance. The author Germán Villén is a Spanish prog rock musician [3] not related to the band and his opinion appears valid and independent.
- Alright, I was just wondering, cause I'm not familiar with the sources and you wanted to know on their status and stuff. Check.
- Are "ProgVisions.net", "FaceCulture", and "The Dutch Progressive Rock Page" reliable sources?
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I´will be working on the article starting tomorrow morning. I think your observations can be properly and quickly adressed. Thank you for your time reviewing the article. Lewismaster (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for it, just doing my part. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've done fixing the article and I leave it to your judgement. Now back to work on the next one... Lewismaster (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- You've done good, cause I believe everything is in order. Thank you to Lewismaster for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for my first GA article. Lewismaster (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- You've done good, cause I believe everything is in order. Thank you to Lewismaster for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've done fixing the article and I leave it to your judgement. Now back to work on the next one... Lewismaster (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome for it, just doing my part. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I´will be working on the article starting tomorrow morning. I think your observations can be properly and quickly adressed. Thank you for your time reviewing the article. Lewismaster (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (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.