Talk:The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. I see that there is a major revamp tag on the article. I shall review as it stands now, and we shall see where to go from there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Jezhotwells, thank you for taking on this review. Just to introduce myself very briefly, I'm Moisejp and I have also been working on this article, along with Mick gold (talk) and I.M.S. (talk). Would you like us to take off the revamp tag while you are reviewing the article? That's just a tag we use when we're doing our WikiProject Bob Dylan Collaboration of the Month, but it doesn't mean the article is "unstable," it just means it's an article we're focused on improving. You can expect that in the next while most or all changes we make will be in response to your comments. Thanks again, and looking forward to working with you during the review process. Moisejp (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow—that was fast! Thanks for the review, Jezhotwells. Moisejp—if the reviewer thinks the article is close to FA quality, there's really nothing stopping us from FAC... what do others think? Could it hurt to ask a copyeditor to make a quick pass over it before we proceed with FAC? (I don't think there's any need to rush at the moment, of course). - I.M.S. (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your review, Jezhotwells! I.M.S., I say we discuss that under a new heading separate from this GA Review. Moisejp (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations: no disambiguations found Y

Link rot: no dead links found Y

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article is well written, and follows the MoS for articles on albums. The Lead adequately summarises the article in a succinct manner.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All online sources are live links, all references appear to be reliable sources. I assume good faith for off-line print sources. All references which I have been able to check support the cited statements.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article covers all aspects of the album, its conception, recording, production, release, recpetion and legacy thoroughly, without unnecessary detail.

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):

   One image is used, correctly tagged as a non free album cover, no caption is required as this is the only cover that has been used for this recording.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is good to go, I am am more than happy to list this as a good article. I reckon this is close to FAC. Only another 53 Big Zim album articles to! Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)