Talk:Jean-Michel Basquiat/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ceradon (talk · contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
You are a capable writer. I might quibble here and there, but if I did, I either changed it myself or left it where it lay; a good article nomination is not a place for quibbling anyway (also, please feel free to revert if any of my edits were wrong)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
"During their relationship, Goode began snorting heroin with Basquiat since drugs were at her disposal."

I looked at the source and this is not an inaccurate paraphrasing of what Goode said, but it might be controversial and give a false impression that she was coaxed into drug use by Basquiat, which she explicitly denies. It may be better to simply quote Goode directly here.

Copyvio check found no problem (see here) – first web page trascludes the Wikipedia article; other high rates of similarity are because many names, places, and dates are the same, which is unavoidable.

I purported to fix two references to the Hoban book – they pointed to Hoban 2004 but the only book was Hoban 1998. Let me know if that was incorrect.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I added a quote by Goode as suggested. Hoban's book was originally released in 1998, a revised edition was released in 2004. The 1998 edition is correct for the citations because that's source I've been using. --Twixister (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Happy to pass this nomination. Good work here, Twixister. ceradon 22:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I just got a notification delivered by Legobot, on behalf of you that the article failed. Was that an accident? Do I have to nominate the article again now?--Twixister (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see on the article talk page that it is listed as a good article, it just needs the logo on the article. The message on my talk page about it failing confused me.--Twixister (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]