Talk:Elephant 6/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: S Marshall (talk · contribs) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The spelling and grammar are correct for US English, and the text is clear. The text isn't yet maximally concise, and would benefit from a further editing pass, paying attention to WP:TERSE and, particularly, the following issues that jumped out at me:

   i) I think the current text overuses the passive voice. It's not wrong to use the passive voice in places, and you shouldn't try to remove every instance of it, but the active voice is less wordy and many readers find it more engaging.

   ii) The article repeats "the collective" slightly too often.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Yes it does. Good work.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Yes it does. Well done.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Yes indeed.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I checked a random sample of the references, and I did not find any original research.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I checked a random sample of the references, and I did not find any copyright or plagiarism issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes it does.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes it does.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This is a simple, factual article on an uncontroversial topic, and there are no conflicting viewpoints that require reconciliation.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   The article is reasonably stable. There are understandable and expected issues with original research, as is commonplace in music-related articles, but I do not consider that these issues rise anywhere near the level of a GA fail.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The article contains three images, all of which are in my opinion appropriately tagged for their copyright status as applicable.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Yes they do.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is one light editing pass away from promotion to GA status.

Update 12th July: I'm now content to pass the article.—S Marshall T/C 04:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping

@Famous Hobo: I'm pinging you to prompt you to read this GA review.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Sorry for the late response, and thank you for the reveiw! I've cut down on a number of the "collective" instances, and by extension "Elephant 6" which I use interchangebly. I also tried to cut down on passive voice instances, although admittedly I had a hard time finding some of them. The finer aspects of grammar are not my strong suit, so perhaps I've seen some obvious instances. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've given it another editing pass. Are you happy with the changes I've made?—S Marshall T/C 02:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Yeah, it all looks great, thank you! By the way, one thing I should mention is at the bottom of the sources section is a further information section which includes an Elephant 6 documentary. It's safe to assume the documentary has more information, but the problem is I physically cannot watch it. It's only available on VHS (for some reason), and you can only watch it by scheduling a watch party in one of six US cities, and I don't live in any of those cities. There's no indication that it'll ever be released online, so that's why I created a further information section. Do you think that looks good? Famous Hobo (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly not something I've come across before. Looks like a reasonable way of doing it, to me.—S Marshall T/C 04:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)