Talk:Girlschool/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I will begin reviewing/commenting shortly. J04n(talk page) 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be waiting. Lewismaster (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I'm torn over the use of "Lemmy" rather than his surname Kilmister. I realize that he simply goes by Lemmy, but the first time that he is mentioned it is as "Lemmy Kilmister". Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names says it should be the surname. I think to get around that the second sentence of the '1978 - 1982: N.W.O.B.H.M.' section could be changed to "...coming to the ear of Ian Kilmister, commonly known as Lemmy, leader of..." What do you think?

   Actually Lemmy Kilmister is the way the man is most usually addressed in the press and rock world. However, on Wikipedia the article dedicated to him is titled only Lemmy and on the FA Motörhead article Lemmy is the only name used, except in the introduction where a solution like the one you suggested is used. I think that the use of the surname Kilmister to identify him is not appropriate and we could go with your solution or "...Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, leader of..." used on the Lemmy article. Which one do you think is more appropriate? Lewismaster (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   I suppose either way, it should just be consistent throughout the article. There is precedent in other articles that are more directly related to him being just Lemmy, but the MoS I linked above suggests the surname.J04n(talk page) 22:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

   I followed your suggestion for the first appearance of the name and used the pseudonym for all the other entries Lewismaster (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

   • I'm confused by this sentence:"Back in England, the routine of recording, touring and promotional work started again, but the strain was wearing out Kelly Johnson, who was also tired of the music the band had been playing for four years without a break" was it the music that they were playing or the fact that they played for 4 straight years without a break that she was tired of? Do you see what I mean?

   I rephrased the sentence and clarified the content

   • In the same paragraph the sentence "Holder and Lea, returned to great fame in Great Britain with their rock band Slade, were convinced to produce only a single, with the rest of the album to be recorded in Los Angeles with Quiet Riot producer Spencer Proffer" is a mess; what about: "Holder and Lea ended up only producing a single before returning to Great Britain with the band Slade. The remainder of the album was recorded in Los Angeles with Quiet Riot producer Spencer Proffer."?

   Grammar aside it is confusing, was the band in America with Holder and Lea, then H & L left for GB? If this is true the fact that they were in the US should have been established earlier.

   Same sentence, what was the single produced by H & L? as a reader I want to know.

   Same sentence combined with the next is also confusing; says they recorded the album in LA but then says "The band decided instead to record their fourth studio album in North London" where was it recorded?

   The sentence "The band decided instead to record..." is also a bit awkward.

   I rewrote this part and it should be clearer now

   Same paragraph, what were the 2 Slade songs on the album?

   added songs

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The second sentence in the lead is not fully supported by the source, the source says they "are apparently listed in..." (emphasis mine), apparently was left out of the quote in the ref. If they are in the Guinness Book, it should be able to be better verified.

   I added "apparently" to the quote, but I have trouble in finding a proper reference for this sentence. I don't have the 2004 World Records Guinness Book and the Guinness Book website does not report any record like this one. What should I do?

   • The second sentence of the first paragraph of the '1975 - 1978: Painted Lady' subsection is cited to the Fullinbloom.com. 31 July 2009 but that reference makes no mention of Val Lloyd or that Deirdre Cartwright was a neighbor of the other ladies.

   being a neighbour or not is not very important and I added the reference for Val Lloyd

   • The close of the '1975 - 1978: Painted Lady'subsection. "touring small venues in France, Ireland and Great Britain", is not sourced.

   added reference

   • The bulk of the third paragraph in the '1978 - 1982: N.W.O.B.H.M.' section is not sourced (only the final sentence is supported by the source at the end of the paragraph).

   added references

   • The first and last sentences of the fourth paragraph in the '1978 - 1982: N.W.O.B.H.M.' section are not sourced.

   added references and changed the first sentence

   • The final sentence of the next paragraph "was certified silver in December 1981, the best sale performance for both bands at the time." is not sourced.

   added reference and an explanation about the use of the database.

   • The first sentence of the next paragraph "The album Hit and Run was released in March 1981..." is not sourced

   corrected release date and added references for all release dates.

   • The final sentence of the same paragraph "The Friday Rock Show on BBC Radio 1 broadcast..." is not sourced.

   added reference, at minute 12:20 of the video interview Denise Dufort cites the Show broadcasting of the Reading Festival

   • The final sentence of the next paragraph "On the recommendation of Lemmy, Williams was replaced by Ghislaine 'Gil' Weston" is not sourced.

   added reference

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Interim comment 1: I've read through the article once and am confident that the potential for promotion is there. On my second and more thorough review I've only gone through the lead and first two subsections of the 'History' section. The sourcing issues that I've found are listed above. You can begin fixing now or wait for me to go through the whole thing, either way is ok with me. Also, I'm not entirely sure that all of the sources are reliable, I'm not yet saying that they aren't but after I closely go through the article I will more closely assess the reliability of each of the sources.J04n(talk page) 01:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your work. I'll try to fix what I can on the go and continue my research for more references on the most difficult ones. Lewismaster (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Interim comment 2: I did some copy editing of the '1983 - 1985: American sirens' subsection, it needs more (see comments above), also there are paragraphs that end without sources. Some of the biggest offenders end with "which was released in 1985 and reissued on DVD with the title Girlschool - Live from London in 2005.", "At the end of the tour, Jackie Bodimead left the band.", "the only published track from this period is the song "Lust for Love" on Toyah’s album Take the Leap!.", "The rest of the year was dedicated to a world tour for the promotion of the new release.", etc. Let me know after you've had a chance to do more copyediting and further sourcing.
  • I'll let you know. Thank you for your patience. Lewismaster (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Final comment: Congratulations, a lot of time and effort went into getting this article up to snuff. J04n(talk page) 16:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for my second Good article! Now to the next... Lewismaster (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

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.