Talk:The Sound of White/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 12 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.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Background and recording section, "...she flew to LA to sign an international recording contract with Warner Bros.", it might be best to spell out "Los Angeles", or do this ---> "Los Angeles (LA)".

    Done

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   Reference 50 is missing an accessdate, and there's a dead link.

   Check.

   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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and for fixing the nom - I keep forgetting that step! Just to clarify: with the mention of LA, it is spelled out already in that sentence. Do you want me to add (LA) to that first instance of the same sentence?
  • You're welcome for the GAN tag, just assuming good faith with it, and Nascar1996 got the LA bit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure which ref you mean that needs an access date - there's no no. 50.
  • That's weird, here it says number 50. I just looked in the article and it's Ref. 22.
    • Ah ok. That's a book and the link is just a courtesy link so doesn't need an accessdate.--BelovedFreak 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• The dead link is a courtesy link to an offline source, but I've commented it out for now. I was kind of hoping it would come back online. --BelovedFreak 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Check.

Thank you to both Nascar and Belovedfreak for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)