Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've read through this article and made a few minor edits, but there is a {{citation needed}} flag in Legacy. I'm just going to work my way through the article one more time. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that was something that was there when I originally looked at the article to get it to GA status. Couldn't source it, so I removed it. An IP added it recently, so I tagged it to give them time to source it. I would remove the entire sentence that is tagged. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a fairly short article, so I'm just going to do an overall summary. There were a couple of points that came to the "fore" during my final but they are more in the way of comments:

• In the Filming/Pompeii subsection I thought it might be useful to wikilink "24 track recorder" but that was not so easy as Multitrack recording is a general article and Ampex#16 and 24-track recorders is far more specific, but having checked all the references there was no way to know whether they were using Ampex (tm) equipment.
• In the Outtakes section there is a mention of "Archives du Film du Bois D'Arcy near Paris", which seems to be Fort de Bois-d'Arcy, but the sources don't provide the necessary confirmation that they are the same. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There is one non-free image, but justification for its use is given

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review quickly and diligently. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)