Talk:Rain in England/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you don't mind another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one; I'm trying to clean out some of the older articles from the backlog. Again, sorry you had to wait so long for a reviewer; it seems there's many more people who want to nominate music articles this year than who want to review them, unfortunately. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks like more extremely solid work from you. Again, it seems well written and well sourced, and I've made only a few tweaks as I read along. A few quibbles I didn't want to change without discussing are below:

• "Rain in England is, most likely, the first ambient hip hop album" -- "most likely" seems like a mild overstatement of the sources--one says "perhaps", the second says "I'm just going to take his word". I'd suggest going with "is perhaps the first ambient hip hop album" or "which Lil B describes as the first ..." -- would either of these be acceptable to you?
• " of influential hip hop blog " -- the "influential" here seems like minor peacocking/OR, since none of the other sources are evaluated in-text. Could this word simply be removed?
• "The transcript of the lecture was itself adapted into an ambient music piece with a synthesized voice, and the result was compared to Rain in England" -- the passive voice of this sentence could be clarified to make it clear that E Rock adapted this rather than Lil B, and also who made the comparison; I had trouble understanding it without clicking through to the source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edits to address the above. I still think it's worth noting who made this comparison in-text, but this is a small enough point that I won't hold up the review for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor clarity points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See minor question re: WP:PEACOCK above
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	See very minor point about "most likely" above
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

To summarize, this article is clearly ripe for promotion; I'd just like to get your thoughts on these minor points first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)