This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eddie Costa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Eddie Costa has been listed as one of the
Music good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 18, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Eddie Costa was split to Eddie Costa discography on 5 August 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Eddie Costa be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Moving these comments to the talk page, some may be incorporated into the article:
Econrad 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Where's the love for jazz over at WikiProject Music? Well, I hope you're not sick of getting reviewed by me, but as long as your nominations keep ending up in our list of the oldest noms, I'm going to keep reviewing them.
Anyway, I hope to get comments up about this one today or tomorrow. Thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks like your usual good work. I've only got a few points I'd like your input on so far:
As far as the other criteria go, the article is neutral, stable, and has no images (so no problems with criterion 6). I don't see any MOS issues or prose issues beyond the above. I'll do a more thorough source check for accuracy, copyright issues, and completeness later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this one on as well... My responses are indented above. Some of your points are unresolved, so I'll see what I can do and await your follow-up. EddieHugh ( talk) 13:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
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. | Prose is good. Manual spotchecks and copyvio detector find 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. | |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to online biographies shows no main aspects left out (indeed, this may be the most comprehensive biography on the Internet) |
![]() |
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 |
I cross-checked the discog with other online sources, and ruled a few albums out when I couldn't find anything that matched the jazzdiskat info. Thanks for your help in getting the first article that I really worked on to GA. EddieHugh ( talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Eddie Costa. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Support split - Discography section is close to one third of the page, and should be split to a new article entitled Eddie Costa discography. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)