Talk:Dead Pony/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Launchballer and any others who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues, all standard for a band.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Author missing for list.co.uk source and the title needs trimmed Modified.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Sneaky Pete's is an ad, I wouldn't call that a reliable source. Should likely be removed. Trimmed.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Cite #7, from newfoundsound, seems to just be a reblog of a Scotsman article and should be cited to the original source instead Adjusted.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Missing author on the Reid/Herald source Added.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is TenementTV a reliable source? Both cites to that source are also missing the author. Has an editor and is used only for a single release date, so I'd say so.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Is Gigslutz a reliable source? What about dmy.co? Gigslutz has an editor. I'm guessing the contents of Dmy.co fall under 3b, so cut.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Line of Best Fit is missing author Alloa Advertiser is missing author Added both.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please go through in general and clean up the sources - making sure that the titles don't also include publication names, adding missing authors, etc. There seem to be a number of issues across multiple cites. I think I've got them all (well, all the ones that have them), please advise if I haven't.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, I'll take a look at the rest of the sources again, but all the changes look good. Kerrang, Dork, Distorted Sound all seem fine. DIY is reluctant to tell about themselves on their website, but what I can see in our article on them and elsewhere seem fine. Sources are acceptable, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The notes are a little unusual. Can you explain them a bit? I don't think they are OR, but they appear similar to OR. They're citebundles installed for readability. I'll address the rest of these when I'm less tired.--Laun chba ller 18:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I ended up cutting one of them anyway.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I don't love the way they're formatted (it makes it feel like OR even though it isn't) but that's a quibble, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up the box quote and some review phrases, but all attributed and quoted properly in article. Hold for manual spot check. "First came to prominence" is a borrowed phrase from theskinny article - the whole sentence paraphrases too closely for comfort. I ended up trimming most of that sentence anyway.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Nothing found in spot check of 6 sources - all good. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead could be expanded by a couple sentences, including at least one summarizing the Artistry section. I'd split it into two paragraphs. Other than that the article seems to contain about all that's available in reliable sources about the band that I can tell. Added an extra sentence. I cleared out a couple of bits elsewhere in the lead I felt were unnecessary detail for the lead, so this is now the second biggest paragraph. This should be okay to fit in one.--Laun chba ller 03:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] I made a couple of prose tweaks and split the paragraph for readability - a few shorter paragraphs seem better for the lead, but not a big deal.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As I go through it, it is written with the level of the detail that may interest a fan, but not a general reader. For instance, citing the Hug & Pint to say that a former member was gigging at a random Glasgow venue a year after he left the band is too much detail. The band supporting Twin Atlantic is too much detail, or CHVRCHES. Playing at gigs and supporting other acts is extremely run-of-the-mill for bands - it's just what they do and it's not really interesting on an encyclopedic level. I can make more detailed suggestions, but it'd be great if you can take a run through and clean up the article a little. Not bad, given that my entire opinion of the band is "they do a respectable cover of Maneater!". I have removed "Glasgow YouTuber", "fellow Glaswegian", "commercial music", the sentence beginning "The cover art", and the entire gig content (and moved one cite to the "Tours" section - and removed two bullets that weren't sourced...). Please let me know what else you had in mind.--Laun chba ller 15:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] The trims look good, thanks for going through. Pass, any remaining minor issues can be handled in prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	With trims, and maybe a couple tweaks in prose review, should be fine. No major neutrality issues. Provisional pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars or major ongoing expansions, question on talk relates to breadth, stable enough, pass.
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.	All good, Flickr confirmed, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images work well, no issues. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.