Talk:Melly Goeslaw/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   In the first Indonesian Film Festival after a twelve year hiatus, which covered Indonesian movies from 2000 to 2004, This makes no sense at all.

   After refusing to perform solo concerts many times because of creative differences, in 2009, Goeslaw held her first concert, Confusing, needs clarification

   Her songwriting work has led to her being recognized as an intellectual property rights figure. What is this supposed to mean?

   I made a number of copy-edits[1], please ensure that you get a competent copy-editor to assist you before further nominations.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Spotchecks on sources OK, sources support statements, no OR, sources are RS

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good summary coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold until 2 January for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, all in order, listing as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Only three prose issues? Not bad. I'll get right on it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've done the fixes, and have fixed a couple of mistakes / typos introduced with your copyedit. A couple questions:

1. I'm not a big fan of 'Whilst' (to be honest, it sounds rather old-fashioned). Any particular reason to replace 'while' with 'whilst'?
2. The source says 'popular', not 'successful'. There is a small difference between the two; for example, we could say that William Hung was successful, but his popularity would be up to debate as many of his "fans" liked him ironically.
3. I had deliberately left 'conventional' in double quotation marks as what is conventional in one culture / era will be completely different in another. Any particular reason for dropping the double quotation marks?

Feedback would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I accept your points, Whilst/While is a British/American difference. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 27 December 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.