Talk:Twice Through the Heart/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

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):

   2 images, both WPCommons-hosted, one claims public domain, the other Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

• For the References, there are templates to assist you {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}. Please make ref 1 & 2 & 15 consistent with the other formats, in ref 17 "accessed" is not necessary if there is no url, and include the publisher in ref 18. Include the |accessdate= parameter for the url in ref 8.
• Don't put citations in the title (move ref 13 out of the section title).
• Reference 25 -Nicholas Williams "Classical review: London Sinfonietta, QEH: Farewells with violence", The Independent, has the wrong url link (it goes to The Daily Telegraph).

Thank you for the review. I have acted on all the recommendations except:

• I have preferred not to use the citation templates. I have instead reviewed the footnotes again, trying to make the format consistent on capitalisation, italics, date format etc and in the process ficing a couple of spelling errors. I believe the notes are now in order.
• On 17, I added in the url rather than remove the access date.
• I have also reworked the lead slightly, preferring two paragraphs now and put the publisher's description ahead of ENO's.

Thanks again for looking at this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The refs look good and consistent now. maclean (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)