Talk:Empty Orchestra/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Given I have begun reading this for DYK I will continue here. Queries to be jotted below:


 * " Empty Orchestra" follows a relatively simply narrative of co-workers on a night out ..."simple"..?
 * Yes, fixed; thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sold on the capitalised Deaf I must say, but am not familiar with current terminology so am happy to defer on this...
 * I wouldn't have capitalised it normally, but I'm following Howlett's own terminology. I think it's generally good practice (and this is enshrined in at least a few policies/guidelines on Wikipedia) to respect people's own ascriptions of self-identity. I suspect she has favoured it because she wants to say that she is Deaf, rather than just being deaf. So, from our article on Deaf culture: "When used as a cultural label especially within the culture, the word deaf is often written with a capital D and referred to as "big D Deaf" in speech and sign. When used as a label for the audiological condition, it is written with a lower case d." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I've learnt something today :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Pemberton drew inspiration from the way viewers "sensed those characters were having fun at these musical events". - f this could be written without paraphrasing and quotes that's be good as not memorable or distinctive. The article has a lot of quotes, but most add something when relayed verbatim.
 * Rephrased. I appreciate I use a lot of quotes in these articles; something to work on! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, nout to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to have a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - a nice read  Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)