Talk:Flocabulary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Would 'Word Up!' be considered a title or a work of some kind? If so, it should be styled as such. Also, the Flocabulary website refers to it as 'The Word Up Project.' Is there another source out there that can clarify the name? I think Word Up! is its stylized name, changed it to "Word Up". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I made a few small copyedit changes. Let me know if there is disagreement on any of them. There are a few run-ons in places. Some I fixed, others I wasn't sure what to do with. An example would be the sentence in the 'Criticism and controversy' section that starts with, "In particular, the lyrics to the song ..." I fixed the sentence you referred to, any others? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Also watch that end-of-sentence punctuation appears before the quotation marks, not after. I corrected a few of these, but I may have missed some. This doesn't apply to song titles or short phrases such as "context or accuracy", but otherwise the fixes are accurate. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I see there is citation for all of the material in the lead later in the document, but it should really all be cited in the lead as well (WP:LEADCITE). There are now citations in the lead. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Looks good!
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	I have read through the sources and, as with the lead, it looks like all information is properly verified by a source somewhere. However, the citations seem sparse, as in it is not always clear which citations cover which claims. The first paragraph in the History section is one particular example. This should be fixed now, if you have any more sourcing concerns let me know. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Much better! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This was done very well. I think the coverage and the all-angles perspective is excellent.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Once again, done very well. A good job was done to cite the always controversial controversies section, and I think the article properly conveys all perspectives fairly.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I would have liked to see a template (like {{Non-free use rationale logo}}) in use for the fair use rational on the image page, but what is there is passable. Added the template anyway! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this was a well written and well sourced article. As you can see, most of my remarks are stylistic in nature, so with just a few corrections, I would promote this to GA. I am going to place the nomination on hold in the mean time. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Changes have been made. I will go a head and promote to GA. Good work! Daniel Simanek (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI: this is may first GA review, so any feedback that could help me improve my reviewing in the future would be much appreciated. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)