Talk:Carousel (musical)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Will review. 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been through the article thrice I have no doubt that I should promote it to GA, and the few comments that follow do not affect that one way or the other. But you might like to look at them before I observe the formalities.

• Background
  • "When it reappeared on the Budapest stage" – it would be good to have a date for this

The source doesn't say but I will keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • "there is a story that the actual translator, uncredited, was …Lorenz Hart" – a source for this?

Wehwalt added a source as requested, but it is the same source shown in the following sentence. Perhaps we can remove the second reference to that source (which is merely to confirm a cast member (does h38 cover that anyway?)). The n153 cite comes up a third time in the same little paragraph anyhow! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Plot synopsis (one word too many in this heading, perhaps?)
  • "barker" is bluelinked, but has been used, unlinked, earlier
• Productions
  • "daughter Mary" – blue link from the two-word phrase looks a bit odd
• Notes
  • For web references you vary between "Retrieved on MDY" and "Retrieved MDY" (and note 70 has "retrieved" without the capital R.)
  • Note 87 – could not the url be piped?

Not quite sure what you mean here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A Wiki-colleague has kindly attended to this.

• References
  • Links to Google Books – I assume that these links open readable texts where you are; they don't where I am. I imagine this is a matter of local copyright or some such, but you may wish to know that not all your readers can see what you are quoting. (Not that this is a reason to avoid such links, of course)

I know. When I go to Canada, I get a lot less access to Google books. It's the best we can do though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Links
  • You need to disambiguate your links to Creole, John Kenrick, Majestic Theatre, New Republic and Oliver Smith
• Images
  • You have managed surprisingly well from Commons. I don't know if the fair use rationale for the LP cover would persuade an image expert, but it persuades me.
  • Alt-text – not a GA sine qua non, but you have it for two out of your six images, and you might wish to add it to the others
• Possessives
  • I notice you write "Rodgers's", which surprised me: I thought that was the UK usage with "Rodgers'" the U.S.

I've found I get less complaints with s's ... let's see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, there is lots of disagreement about this. See this.

Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done everything as noted except the alt text, which I will add later today, I don't like to do that in haste. Alt text is not my forte; anyone more interested than I should feel free to jump in. Thank you for the review. I think the article is shaping well, better than FDS, as more source material is available, and Carousel just brims with emotion that you can't help carrying over into the article. Unlike FDS, which is a fine work in its way, but not a classic.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was easy (for me). A very fine article. I have not the slightest reservation in promoting it to GA. Shall we be seeing it at FAC in due course?

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

Tim riley (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As soon as we do some polishing and Royal Maundy passes, at FAC it shall go.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)