Talk:Queen (band)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good article is
  • Well-written:
  • (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
  • Verifiable with no original research:
  • (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article. and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage:
  • (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  • Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.


    Good article nominations are reviewed for the above as well as for—

    1. Clean-up tags
    2. If there are valid clean-up tags on your article, including Cleanup, POV, Copyedit, Trivia, External links and multiple Fact tags, then you need to address the issue(s) raised before nominating the article.
    3. Stability
    4. If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:
      • an edit war among regular editors,
      • frequent editing due to a current event,
      • a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or
      • proposed merges and splits,
      then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.Instability If the article is unstable due to work being done, such as:
      • an edit war among regular editors,
      • frequent editing due to a current event,
      • a major expansion or reorganization (either underway or being planned), or
      • proposed merges and splits,
      then the nomination might also be failed without a thorough review, and you won't get the feedback you need. Try to resolve such issues before nominating. Obvious vandalism, even at high rates, does not count against the article.
    5. Article length
    6. Although there is no set guideline on article length for GAs, it is best for the article not to be too short or so long that there is not enough focus on the topic. The article should be broad, covering multiple areas to give readers an overview of the topic.
    7. Summarized lead
    8. The lead (introduction) should summarize the topic by touching on all of the various sections within the article. For articles of various lengths, guidelines recommend that the lead range from one to four paragraphs.
    9. Images
    10. Carefully scrutinize any non-free images against WP:FUC. Non-free images may be used only if their exclusion would impair a reader's understanding of the article. Non-free images must be low resolution (less than 300 pixels vertically or horizontally). This is the equivalent of 0.1 megapixels, as described here. Non-free images with higher resolutions must explain why this is necessary. and include detailed fair use rationales. On the image page, ensure that the rationale specifies the article that the image will be used for. Look at similar articles that have reached GA/FA status for examples. The use of images should comply with WP:MOS#Images and WP:CAPTIONS. If possible, use only free images that are available/applicable to the article's topic. Look for images already located on related Wikipedia articles or search Wikimedia Commons. If there are no images available, consider uploading an image of your own if you have the permission or ask the permission of an author of an image on websites such as Flickr.
    11. Inline citations
    12. Articles are expected to be well-supported by reliable sources. While it is not necessary to provide a source for every single sentence or any common knowledge facts, Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires a source to be named for all direct quotations and any statement that a reader is likely to dispute, such as statistical information (ex: 47% of all goods were sold; 3 million people attended the event; the city sustained $588 million in damages). Editors may use any style of referencing and any method of presenting citations that they choose, so long as the article is internally consistent. Well-developed articles generally use some form of inline referencing, which allows the readers and future editors to identify which specific source(s) support any given statement. The two most common inline reference styles are footnotes and parenthetical references.
      • The footnote system uses <ref> tags to create a clickable link following the assertion that it supports. Either full citations or shortened citations followed by an alphabetical list of full citations may be used. The footnoted citations are collected with the <references /> tag in a section towards the end of the article. When using the footnote system, a source can be re-used by naming it: <ref name="Exampletitle">. This prevents you from having to retype the entire citation each time. See WP:REFNAME for more details.
      • The parenthetical system places the full citation in an alphabetical, bulleted list near the end of the article. Within the article text, a shortened citation names the author, (usually) year, and page number in parentheses, like this: (Ritter 2002, p. 45). If parenthetical references are used inline, then the footnote system can be easily used for any necessary explanatory notes.
      Citations to online materials should be written out in full, in whatever style you are using, instead of simply including a bare URL. Whether you choose to manually format the full citation or use a citation template is your choice. Both of these examples (at lines #1 and #2) produce identical-looking citations for the reader (shown at #3):
      1. Tanner, Lindsey. (08 February 2008) [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy"] at [[USAToday.com]]. Retrieved on 10 February 2008.
      2. {{cite news |last=Tanner |first=Lindsey |title=Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy |publisher=[[USAToday|USAToday.com]] |date= 08 February 2008 |url=http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm |accessdate=10 February 2008}}
      3. Tanner, Lindsey (08 February 2008). "Doctors use Wii games for rehab therapy". USAToday.com. Retrieved 10 February 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

      Whatever method you use for formatting, providing full citations is strongly preferred to providing only a bare URL, which appears to the reader as either this: [1] or as http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-02-08-wii-rehabilitation_N.htm

      When trying to find sources of information for an article, use a variety of resources such as books, websites, newspapers, journals, interviews, etc. Consider using a local library for researching information in printed resources. To find online resources, use websites such as news aggregators and Google Scholar, online databases, and search engine searches. If you find a dead link for a source, the Internet Archive may be able to provide an earlier version of the article. Other options for finding information include asking members of a related WikiProject, asking experts of the topic you are researching, or asking editors who have edited similar or related articles.

    13. Brief fixes
    14. Although the Manual of Style is comprehensive in improving every aspect of an article, a nomination does not need to meet every MoS guideline to reach GA status. However, the more accurately and uniformly the article follows these guidelines, the greater the benefit for its readers. A few common Manual of Style errors are listed below.
      • Avoid contractions (such as wouldn't, can't, should've, etc.) within the article unless they are part of a direct quote.
      • Measurements should include both the customary and metric units. Consider using the Convert template for easier editing.
      • When using abbreviations make sure they are explained at their first occurrence in the article.
      • When wikilinking, make sure that dates are only linked when relevant and avoid overlinking common knowledge terms and topics. See WP:CONTEXT and MOS:UNLINKDATES for guidelines. Also, ensure that the wikilink directs the reader to the correct article instead of a disambiguation page.
      • Single sentences or very brief paragraphs normally shouldn't stand alone. Either attempt to expand on them by adding more information or going into greater detail or incorporate the paragraph with another section.
      • Language use should be consistent. Editors contributing from different countries tend to use their own spelling conventions, which can result in, for example, use of "theatre" and "theater" in the same article. Analyze the existing prose and the topic's context to determine which variant should be used.
      • Ensure tense remains consistent. For instance, if you say "Bob said hi," then all future commentary should be in the past tense ("Jane agreed and said hello" as opposed to "Jane says hello").
      • Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose or their own article. An article that is filled with a large number of lists can be difficult to read and will not flow very well.
    15. External links
    16. Ensure the external links conform to WP:External links guidelines.
      Location of links
      Such links belong either in an infobox or in the last section on the page, which should be titled "External links"; they should not be present in the body of the article. One common error is linking company websites or stock trading websites to the names of things mentioned in the text, like this: "Meta-Wiki is an organization that..." or "Apple Inc. (NasdaqAAPL) is a publicly traded company". Such links should be moved to the appropriate infobox and/or external links section instead.
      Choice of links
      If the subject of the article has an official website, that website should normally be linked. Otherwise, do not include too many external links, but consider providing enough high-quality links that a reader could easily find more information on the topic. Webpages that are used to support text in an article should generally not be duplicated in the external links section. No article is required to have any external links, and every external link must be justifiable. Common errors are listed at WP:ELNO.

    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. Overall there are some grammar issues that seem less than encyclopedic in tone. Playing a 'Gig" might be worded differently.
    1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    • The lead has many inline citations and should have none for GA. This article[2] has one but was probably added after it passed.
    • The section Breakthrough era (1974–76) has issues. First, the wording the section title "Breakthrough" is a peacock term that seems to be simple puffery and a bit of POV and possible OR.
    • The first statement has got be cleaned up of the inflametory, unsubstantiated claim about May's absense. It is not supported by the reference --Amadscientist (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There are formatting issues with references and bot inserted warnings hidden in the text. Also hidden tagging is inappropriate for a GA article and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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. Many claims without sources for biographies of living person guidelines.
    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). Puffery issues not supported by references. One or two words are being used in a manner inconsistent with the sources.
    2c. it contains no original research. There is an issue with some original research and POV in a good deal of the article.
    3. Broad in its coverage:
    3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    • The article seems to be a bit short sighted. While it appears to cover most of the main topics...it skips Queens use of Glam rock entirely, yet is mentioned in that wiki article.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Overall the article lacks focus. It tends to be unencyclopedic in many places with to much detail that amounts to little. A good copy edit is desirable.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Written in a somewhat fansish style with puffery and POV.
    5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. checkY
    • The article has a few pranksters and that is probably to be expected with an article of this type and seems more than under control. Seems stable enough as of time review began.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    • The Logo[3] has problems. I doubt the validity of the license as Public Domain under the logic that it is just text. That is an abuse of the license as the text is only part of the full logo that is copyrighted and not expired. It also fails wikipedia fair use policy as being a low resolution image. The file is a vector graphic at high resolution. It also fails fair use in that it takes away market value and has been reproduced on an open source program that allows anyone the ability to use and maniputlate the image.
    • The image: File:Freddy Mercury Statue Montreux.jpg[4] has multiple issues. It really needs a boiler plate, but what is there is confusing at best. The author information is there, but an external link broken. The author information also does not make it clear that this creative commons image was licensed properly with OTS as it appears to have been published previously by the photographer on another site. The member at commons appears to be the photographer yet doesn't properly establish license or make available all source material needed to check. It is also an image of a copyrighted 3 dimensional work of art and would need to be used lisenced as fair use.[5] I really think this should just be discarded from the article unless you want to tackle these problems and wait for the commons member to properly attribute, source, date etc, his image. It's inclusion in the article also must meet MOS and the subject of the image must be discussed and that is the statue. The article must touch on that.
    • The image:File:KharkovQueenGraffiti02.JPG[6] cannot be used. It violates both wikipedia and wikimedia commons policy on copyright. The image is graffiti but is a reproduction of the Queen logo. It cannot be used on the article and should probably be speedy deleted from commons.
    • The image File:Freddie Mercury (159442459).jpg[7] has no description. It is also a copyright issue.
    • The sound files seem to be properly rationaled per Fair Use policy, however their use in the article amounts to simple illustration and not critical commentary. For a sound file to be justified the article needs to speak directly about the specific length of music played and have further value or it is just illustration and doesn't pass.

    --Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    7. Overall assessment.

    Reviewer's thoughts[edit]

    It appears the article may not be up to a GA listing at this time due to the larger and larger amount of issues the reviewer is finding. Mainly copyright issues but some writing and MOS issues as well. I will be able to make a better judgement after a little further review.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed due to overwhelming copyright and fair use issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Writing better articles[edit]

    Wikipedia:Writing better articles --Amadscientist (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]