Talk:Jean-Michel Basquiat/GA2

GA Review

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

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

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

1. 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)

2. 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.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. 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)

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

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)

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)