Talk:David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Blueskiesdry (talk · contribs) 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will probably review this in the next few days.

some cursory thoughts[edit]

Could the album title be shortened some in body? It’s a bit unwieldy with the full eight word title every time it’s mentioned. One of the reviews quoted in Reception shortens it to Peter and the Wolf, so perhaps that’s a viable alternative.

Fixed

Leonard Cohen had previously narrated a version… narrated probably shouldn’t be linked.

Fixed

Later issues were pressed in standard black vinyl. Is there a source for this or is it cited in the previous citations in the paragraph?

Removed

In sources: Should "David Bowie All the Songs" have a colon after "Bowie"?

That's how it's titled in the book itself (without a colon)

That’s all I can see on first glance, will check against criteria in the next couple days. (If I don’t get around to it by then please ping me with a strongly worded demand, as there is a 90% chance I’m procrastinating.)

Hi. I just wanted to check in on the progress of these points. I see you’ve shortened the name, but nothing else seems to be done. Do you want me to just start the criteria checking? blueskiesdry … (cloudy contribs…) 00:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad I forgot to add this to my watchlist. Doing now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See replies above. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. I will start crit-checking soon. Blueskiesdry (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the actual review[edit]

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.	all looks good here, maybe replace "LPs" with something different in the lede per WP:MTAU but it’s not bad enough that it needs neutral or fail
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	no sign of any problems here
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).	what makes Classic FM reliable?
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	philadelphia inquirer has a 37.1% similarity (I’m assuming it’s just quotes but I want to make sure), but it’s under a paywall so unfortunately I can’t check it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	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.	reissue cover has a notice telling you to add a more detailed non free use rationale, so I’m a little bit concerned by that. Everything else seems fine though.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Blueskiesdry (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro I’ve put this article on hold so you can satisfy the minor concerns I have. I’m not sure if the bot notifies you of this on your talk page, but if it does I’m sorry for pinging you twice. Blueskiesdry (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up the full Inquirer article is archived here so you can check it there. For future reference, if you come across a paywalled article (Rolling Stone, NYT, Wall Street Journal, etc.), archive the page using https://archive.is/. That always un-paywalls the articles I find compared to https://archive.org/web/ :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased a little. How's the Inquirer look now? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FU rationale is fine for the reissue cover as everything is already filled out. That notice always appears as a reminder. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this post by Bowie's website describing a reissue by RCA/Music On Vinyl in 2014 so I replaced Classic FM with that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now. I’ll change the remaining parameters of the template and then I’ll pass it. Blueskiesdry (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]