Talk:Grammy Award for Best Soul Gospel Performance, Male or Female/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Rp0211 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk2me) 20:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Infobox
- No issues
- Lead
- No issues
- Background
- "...there were separate categories for Female and Male Soul Gospel Performances." - Reword awards (Ex: Best Soul Gospel Performance for Male and Female)
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- "The gender-neutral award was presented in 1990." - Needs reference
- This entire article is about 1990. Surely as a collection they verify the claim for a Background section. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Award
- "...Albertina Walker for My Time Is Not Over..." - No page exists for "My Time Is Not Over"
- Red links should not be a problem, but I went ahead and removed the link until an article is created for the album. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- "...Daniel Winans for "You Got a Choice to Make"..." - No page exists for "Daniel Winans"
- Red links should not be a problem, but I went ahead and removed the link until an article is created for Daniel. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- All song examples need quotes and should not be italicized (My Time Is Not Over, Wonderful, Total Victory)
- The italicized works are albums (sometimes songs were nominated, sometimes albums were nominated). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Information about recipients of the awards should have own section titled "Recipients" (Ex: see Grammy Award for Best Female Rap Solo Performance)
- I prefer a single section, but I went ahead and created separate sections for the Nominees and the Recipient. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Second paragraph needed in a "Recipients" section of the article
- See above. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- See also
- No issues
- References
- References 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 - The publisher is "Rovi Corporation"
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reference 8 - "work=" parameter and "publisher=" parameters need to be wiki-linked
- Good catch! Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reference 11 - "Hal Leonard" company needs to be wiki-linked
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Reference 13 - Page number is "218" not "281"
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- OVERALL REVIEW
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. Here are the main issues keeping this article from GA status:
- MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: There are places where information should have separate sections.
- References to sources: There is one spot where a specific fact does not have a citation.
Done --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Other than these main issues, there are other minor issues that can easily be fixed. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistakes addressed in the article and/or debate the points you believe do not affect GA status. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to conduct a review. I will address the concerns above as soon as possible. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.