Talk:The Village Green Preservation Society

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Village Green Preservation Society/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 14:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Copyvio check - I reviewed the matches over 10% from Earwig's Copyvio Detector - no concerns. (Matches were titles, and attributed quotes.) No concerns from the few offine sources I checked, either.
• Image - suitable, FUR in place, caption is fine. Alt text could be added (MOS:ALT) to explain what the cover depicts.

• Added Alt text.

Background and recording

• Quote box - are all three citations needed? The Paste source doesn't have "(Village Green)" - so should that be in square brackets rather than parentheses?

• The two next to the quotation are there because one is a primary source and the other is secondary. The citation next to the source is because they provide the specific date and clarify that Ray was talking about "The Village Green Preservation Society".

• Optionally, add some introductory details, rather than jumping in with "Ray Davies composed.." E.g. "of English Rock Band the Kinks", perhaps the year they formed. (In my view, readers will have read the lead first, but my interpretation of the MOS is that the body text should be written to assume that they haven't, with the lead being a summary of the main article rather than an introduction.) " the band's principal songwriter Ray Davies" is in the lead but not explicitly in the body.

• How does the MOS cover this? I'm not sure where to look.

• I had in mind MOS:NOTLEDE ("...its purpose is to summarize the article, not just introduce it.") rather than what I've just read in MOS, which is "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." in MOS:LEAD. I put this as optional as I didn't think there were any issues with the lead that would prevent the GA nomination being successful. 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Composition

• I don't think you need both "Among the things listed" and "among others"

• Fixed.

• "The song concludes by building towards its final lyric of.." - to me, a conclusion wouldn't include the buildup. It's not clear to me what's being described by " building towards" either.

• Simplified to The song concludes with its final lyric "God save the village green!", backed with falsetto harmony vocals.

• "UK Conservative Society" - Rogan source has "Conservation Society" (The Conservation Society was formed in 1966, but I am not sure if that's the same one)

• Yes, that's the same one. Linked.

• English billiards is probably a better wikilink than billiards. (It may be a complete coincidence, but Rex Williams won the World Billiards Championship (English billiards), which had not been contested since 1951, on 10 August, and it received some press coverage in the UK on that date and on 12 August.)

• Changed. I wouldn't be surprised if it was related. A lot of the crappier coverage around Village Green makes it sound like this album popped into existence completely independent from all musical and social trends. Obviously that isn't true, but only a few authors have made interesting connections between the album and contemporary events.

Release

• No issues.

Reception

• No issues.

Notes

• No issues.

References

• Hinman & Brabazon (1994) seems like an OK WP:SPS, given that Hinman (2004) is from an established publisher and Hinman appears to be well-regarded. The other sources all look OK.

• Agreed. I'd offer the same justification here as I did over at Talk:Four More Respected Gentlemen/GA1.

• Spot check on "which Rogan thinks was Ray's self-mockery over his increased social standing" - OK
• Spot check on "the song's message was meant to directly contrast with that of contemporary rock music, such as the Rolling Stones' 1968 single "Street Fighting Man"" - OK
• Spot check on "Keith Altham was especially fond of the title track, which he thought could have made it to No. 1 in the UK had it been issued as a single" - OK

Infobox and lead

• Given that Ray Davies is the only Davies mentioned in the lead, it seemed odd that he is referred to as Ray subsequently in the lead, but I think this is in line with MOS:SAMESURNAME.

• Yeah, I think it's best to refer to him as Ray throughout, rather than Davies in the lead and Ray in the body.

• "in the decades after its release" - make this a bit more specific in line with the "throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s" from the body. (I'm assuming it wasn't after the 90s")

• Done.

Thanks for another review BennyOnTheLoose. Responses above. Tkbrett (✉) 20:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article and your responses, Tkbrett. I'm satisfied that the article meets the criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (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.