Talk:The Monks/GA1
Add topicGA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Garagepunk66 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. 
This process may take 7 days. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Below is a check-off list of items in the GA criteria which will be addreesed:
- 1) It is reasonably well written:
OK
- Prose is clear and precise: OK
- Spelling and grammar: OK
- Lead section (as per Manual of style): OK
- Layout (as per Manual of style): OK
- Words to watch: OK
- List(s) incorporation (if applicable):
- Prose is clear and precise:
- 2) Verifiable and factually accurate :*1) It is reasonably well written: OK
- Prose is clear and precise: OK
- Spelling and grammar: OK
- Lead section (as per Manual of style): OK
- Layout (as per Manual of style): OK
- Words to watch: OK
- List(s) incorporation (if applicable):
- Prose is clear and precise:
- 2) Verifiable and factually accurate OK
- All in-line citations from reliable sources: OK
- No original research: OK
- List of notes and references: OK
- Respects copyrights and no plagiarism: OK
- Respects copyright laws: OK
- All in-line citations from reliable sources:
- 3) Broad in its coverage: OK
- Addresses main aspects of topic: OK
- Stays focused on topic: OK
- Addresses main aspects of topic:
- 4) Neutral in tone and point of view: OK
- 5) It is stable. OK
- No edit wars, etc.: OK
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 6) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. OK
- a) (images are tagged and non-free content have Fair use rationales) OK
- b) Appropriate use with suitable captions: OK
- c) Tagged w/ copyright or valid use descriptions: OK
- d) Images relevant to topic: OK
- a) (images are tagged and non-free content have Fair use rationales)
- 7) Overall: OK
- Pass/Fail: OK
- All in-line citations from reliable sources: OK
- No original research: OK
- List of notes and references:
- Respects copyrights and no plagiarism: OK
- Respects copyright laws: OK
- Pass/Fail:
- 3) Broad in its coverage: OK
- Addresses main aspects of topic: OK
- Stays focused on topic: OK
- Addresses main aspects of topic:
- 4) Neutral in tone and point of view: OK
- 5) It is stable. OK
- No edit wars, etc.: OK
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 6) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. OK
- a) (images are tagged and non-free content have Fair use rationales) OK
- b) Appropriate use with suitable captions: OK
- c) Tagged w/ copyright or valid use descriptions: OK
- d) Images relevant to topic: OK
- a) (images are tagged and non-free content have Fair use rationales)
- 7) Overall: Excellent Quality
- Pass/Fail: Passes GA
- Pass/Fail:
- 1) It is reasonably well written:
Is there a way we can get a source that mentions the name, "The Rhythm Rockers" for Burger and Day's duo. Ugly Things and "Holy Rockers" mention their duo, but the name "Rhythm Rockers" is not mentioned in either source. I there a way we can get a source? I'm guessing it is Shaw's book. Do we have a page? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, we could pin down the source that mentions manager talent Hans Reich. I have a feeling it is mentioned in the CD liner notes or in Shaw's book. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done, and The Early Years CD booklet does cover Hans Reich which is why it is used to source that detail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Fixed Good. I also think I identified the source for "Rhythm Rockers", so I put it in, but correct me if I'm wrong. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Final comment: The article looks really good. It is accurate, informative, and broad in scope. It is neutral and objective and cites a wide range of reliable sources. I can now certify that the article meets all of the criteria for GA. Pass. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)