Talk:Syro/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Aria1561 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.

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

One of my favourite records from last year - I'm looking forward to reviewing this :) — sparklism hey! 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Critical reception

edit
  • There are three repeat links in this section: Drukqs, The Guardian and Rolling Stone
  Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Images/media

edit
  Done Added rationales. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  Done - Fixed; added new source Aria1561 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
This has now been replaced with this link. I might be missing something, but there's no mention of Syro on that page. — sparklism hey! 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  Done - Replaced it with a better source. Aria1561 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Background

edit
  • "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which was redone in 2007." How about something like "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which James reworked in 2007"?
  Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • " under the same pseudonym" → " under the Caustic Window alias"?
  Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Accolades

edit
  • "Syro was nominated for, and subsequently won, a Grammy Award.." → "Syro won a Grammy Award.." because it's just simpler to say it this way
  Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Summary

edit

This is a very high quality article as it stands. I'll be going through everything in depth as part of this review and adding to my comments above, but this is already close to GA status, from what I can see. — sparklism hey! 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is looking really good. I've got a few (minor) concerns about the prose, which I'm too busy IRL to detail right now - I'll provide some commentary on this over the next day or two. Thanks — sparklism hey! 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry this has taken me so long. I've added a couple of points above - I'm not a copyediting expert by any means, but most of what I see seems reasonable enough. I'd recommend taking this to WP:GOCE at some point, but I won't let this get in the way of the GA review. — sparklism hey! 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this as a good article - well done! And also congrats to Idiotchalk, who has been a huge contributor to this article. Thanks — sparklism hey! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for reviewing this :) Aria1561 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
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.