Talk:Felix Mendelssohn/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments after first read-through: spelling needs to be consistently UK or US. At present it contains examples of both; inverted commas need to be Wikified – i.e. double quotes throughout. More detailed comments after second read-through. First impression is of an excellent article. Tim riley (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, I will start on these processes....--Smerus (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments after second read-through:
 * Lead and passim: a touch of overlinking in parts. "German" doesn't need linking (see WP:OVERLINK) and I'm not persuaded that symphonies, concerti, oratorios, piano music or chamber music do, either. Later unhelpful blue links to vex the eye are banker, pianist, artist (come on!), watercolour, Vienna, Rome, organ, Paris, aniline (is anyone likely to follow that one?), baton, premiered, and Berlin.


 * You have repeated blue links for many people, from Berlioz to Queen Victoria. I'd prune these ruthlessly – the MOS guideline says "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including … where the later occurrence is a long way from the first…", but I don't think that exception applies in this admirably concise article.


 * Bach is mentioned twice in the same para before getting his blue link. Why not at first mention?


 * You don't give Henry Fothergill Chorley his blue link, which I think you ought to.


 * You need to correct the links to Andrew Porter, Antigone, Ferdinand David and Tomahawk, which all go to disambiguation pages at present.


 * In the earlier years (and even in the later ones) you rather overuse "Felix" rather than "Mendelssohn". If I were you I'd use the former only when there is danger of confusion with another Mendelssohn. Thus "Abraham later explained this decision in a letter to Felix" is fine, but "Felix probably made his first public concert appearance at age nine" isn't. I think this needs adressing if the article is to be promoted.


 * It seems to be Wikipedia orthodoxy, though I haven't actually spotted it in the MoS, that at first mention in each new paragraph it's "Mendelssohn", not "he" – e.g. in the second paras of the Düsseldorf and In Britain sections. (I wondered about the "In" for the latter heading.)
 * Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach
 * the Hebrides Overture and the Scottish and Italian symphonies – no italics?


 * Mendelssohn as a musician
 * I'm not making a point of this, but a WP purist would object to the indefinite article in a heading.

Tim riley (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reputation and legacy
 * I see why you have put the statue pictures left and right, but sandwiching text between pictures is not ideal, and rearranging might be preferable.

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I think I've now dealt with most of the above (if I haven't I am leaving off for the present, as my head is swimming). I've also added a few bits and pieces and reordered some of the content to improve the flow. Where I haven't taken action is on unlinking some of the words (except where the links are repeated). This is not just due to a fondness for 'aniline' - only that some users of WP can be not as sophisticated as we might imagine, and might find something about watercolours, organs or even Berlin useful...anyway I am now going to sleep on it....--Smerus (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with you though I do about the number of links, it is not, I am pleased to say, one of the GA criteria that linking practice should follow the MoS recommendations, so on that account, at any rate, there is no problem. The "Felix" matter needs to be addressed, though. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I have now dealt with the 'Felix' issue - though there are one or two places where, as you allow, it has proved I think more helpful to leave 'Felix' for disambiguation purposes.--Smerus (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That clears up all outstanding objections to promoting the article to GA. Tim riley (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I found this an enjoyable and instructive article to review. There are, in my view, the makings of an FA with some copy editing to bring MoS compliance up to FA standards, but that is for another day. Meanwhile, it is a pleasure to affirm its GA-status.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: