Talk:Doctor Ox's Experiment (opera)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is in fine shape. I can't think why it's been waiting since December for consideration. A few drafting points before I go further with the review:

• Lead
  • You mention in the lead that the piece is dedicated to the composer's mother, but you don't mention it in the main text. There should be nothing in the lead that isn't in the main text (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). And is the dedication of a piece of enough importance to be singled out for mention in the lead?
    • Done.
  • "becomes sped up" – I can't find a modern example of "sped" for the expected "speeded" as a part participle in The Oxford English Dictionary. There are plenty of 17th century examples quoted in the OED, and I have an idea it might still pass muster in American usage, but not in modern English.
    • done
  • reference format – see ref 2: we are enjoined to put refs after, not before, punctuation marks.
    • Okay I've changed it but personally I regard the footnote aspart of the parenthesis.
• Composition history
  • "Morrison" – at his first mention in the main text, Morrison needs both given name and surname and a blue link,
    • Done
  • ENO and Coliseum – blue link at first mention in main text
    • Done
• Music
  • "Obligato" – I think I have seen this spelling before, but "obbligato" is usual, and I believe correct.
    • Done.
  • "slow-motion Mahler" – not a comment on your prose, but I must pause here to recover from the thought of Mahler being protracted any further than his interminable self.
    • I rather like Mahler, but yes, his slow movements can be slow.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Synopsis
  • "to fix on creating…" – not entirely clear what this means – is it "to decide to create"?
    • done
  • There's another unexpected "sped" here, which needs to be "speeded" if I correctly read the OED.
    • done
• References
  • WP's practice (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps is to reduce newpaper headlines from all capitals – as in your Murray quote – to upper and lower case.
    • done
• Links to disambiguation pages
  • You need to disambiguate "Offenbach" and "doubling"
    • done

The criteria for GA are not so strict that any of the above would disqualify the article, but you may, nonetheless, wish to consider them before we proceed further. – Tim riley (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A most interesting and enjoyable article. Concise yet comprehensive

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. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well, that was easy. Clearly meets all the GA criteria. Knocks spots off Grove, which doesn't even have an article on the subject, and which manages to misspell Verne's name in the article on the composer. And how many words does the Oxford Companion to Music spare for this opera? A grand total of 19. Your article is another example of Wikipedia leading the field. – Tim riley (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)