Talk:Tony Tribe/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

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 14:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: FloblinTheGoblin (talk · contribs) 13:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I will do this review. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 13:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm behind on this. I had an unavoidable wikibreak due to a trip and so I wasn't able to complete it over the weekend. I'll have it done in three days or so. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

List

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Sorry it took me a while to get started on this. No prose issues, all sentences and things are clear. I did wikilink the word "braces" for suspenders because it hadn't been mentioned earlier and I personally didn't know what "braces" meant.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Lead is accessible, due, verifiable, includes alternative names, etc. Layout is in the proper order. No words to watch as far as I can tell. No fiction obviously, and the only list in the article is the discography section which is formatted as a proper, simple, unordered list which is not too long to justify that.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Reflist is, of course, properly formatted.

   B. 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): All claims are cited. Issues: a citation to Discogs, which is an unreliable source per WP:RSPS. So, I removed it. However, what I'm definitely worried about are the many citations to https://canpopencyclopedia.home.blog/. There's eight citations to it, but it does not appear to be a reliable source. The rest appears to be fine.

   C. It contains no original research: All good, see spot check below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: I used Earwig's Copyvio Checker, there were two almost 50% false positives, one of which was just nouns and things, and the other of which was due to the quoted material. So, no copyvio.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Addresses all main aspects, including life, career, discography, and his unclear death circumstances. I can't think of anything regarding him that would be missing.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Stays quite focused. All article content is fully related to Tony Tribe and nothing seems out of place, unrelated, or warranting splitting. Article size is quite reasonable.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Represents the conflicting viewpoints of how he died fairly and equally. I did change the lead wording because I feel like the theory that he died in the early 70s and the theory that he was still alive should be weighted equally. If you disagree we can discuss it.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Clearly quite stable. Not much to say here.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: I added a fair use image. It is properly tagged.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: No images with captions, the one image is an Infobox image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: The issue about the Canadian Music Encyclopedia needs to be fixed. I would fix it myself, but there are too many citations in the article to just remove it. Again, so sorry for the delay. Thank you! Incorrect, Canadian Music Encyclopedia is a reliable source. All issues addressed, passed. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 00:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

   The Canadian Pop Music Encyclopedia is written by Jaimie Vernon, who has been a music journalist for 40 years. At worst, it's an WP:EXPERTSPS.--Launchballer 23:23, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

   Crud, you're right. Forgive me, the site link saying it was a blog and the lack of a good about section threw me off. I did a Google search, but I missed the Wikipedia link. That was quite negligent of me, I'm sorry.

   Seeing as that was my only gripe with the article, consider it passed. 𝓕𝓵𝓸𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓷 (Talk to me! · My contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Spot check

• "RPM-1972-04-08.pdf" (PDF). Worldradiohistory.com. Retrieved 27 December 2023. Verification succeeded.
  
• "The Number Ones: UB40's "Red Red Wine"". Stereogum. 31 May 2021. Retrieved 27 November 2023. Verification succeeded for all instances.
• "15 Best Reggae Songs of All Time - Singersroom.com". 2 January 2025. Verification succeeded on both counts.
• Meschino, Patricia (13 September 2018). "How Pioneering U.K. Label Trojan Records Pushed Reggae Into the Mainstream". Billboard. Retrieved 27 November 2023.
• Canty, Ian (3 February 2019). "Various Artists – The Down Town Albums Collection – Album Review". Louder Than War. Retrieved 28 November 2023.

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.