Talk:Giacomo Meyerbeer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article appears to be at or about GA-level, (see WP:WIAGA), in so far as it appears to be well referenced and board in scope. So I'm just going to work my way down the article, but leaving the WP:lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point in the review, I will be mostly concentrating on " problems", if any, rather than good points (they will be considered in the Overall summary).


 * Early years -
 * Looks OK.


 * Career -
 * In Italy & Recognition -
 * These two subsections look OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Between Paris and Berlin -
 * Note: Refs 37, 38, 39, etc, are referenced as Meyerbeer (1999-2004) x, y but strictly they aught to be called up as Meyerbeer & Letellier (1999-2004) x, y. - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is Veron? Veron is mentioned six times in the second paragraph without any explanation of who he was. - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The third paragraph refers to Robert, but I thought it was called Robert le diable? - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the first sub-subsection is 1832-1842 and that is followed by The 1840s sub-subsection, but the first appears to go up to 1841 in respect of Gaspare Spontini, but in respect of Meyerbeer it appears to stop at August 1839 (or May 1906), and the second starts in 1841. Can't these dates be cleaned up? - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Personality and beliefs -
 * In general, looks OK.
 * However, the expression  ....gave rise to malicious rumours ...  is used and this (and particularly later comments) bring into question whether this article is compliant with Neutral point of view. - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Music and Theatre -
 * Music & Theatre -
 * Robert appears again in both subsections.


 * Reception -
 * Musical Influence & Critical Reception -
 * Interestingly these two subsection refer to both Robert le Diable and to Robert !!!! - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wagner's campaign against Meyerbeer -
 * I don't have the citations to check, but I have concerns as to whether this section is compliant with Neutral point of view. Statements are made of 'The vitriolic campaign of Richard Wagner ....; ... much a matter of personal spite as of racism...; was facetiously called by ...; however, none of these statements are direct quotations, but all the sentences in which they appear have citations.


 * Reevaluation -
 * The first paragraph is unreferenced and, based on the claims being made, these aught to have a citation(s). - ❌ Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, it looks OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * The lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points (see WP:Lead) and arguably it does. The lead is four paragraphs long - well one sentence and three paragraphs, which is OK, but for an article of this length it's possibly a bit on the "lean side".
 * Taking the last paragraph as an example: the body of the article supports the statement of Wagner conducting a campaign against Meyerbeer but the emphasis appears to read differently, the lead omits any mention of Rienzi and that the campaign became stronger after the death of Meyerbeer. All three paragraphs should be considered in respect of the Relative emphasis requirement in Introductory text.


 * At this point, I'm going to put the review On Hold. The main problem is compliance with Neutral point of view, but there are other (minor) matters that should be considered. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for this: I have made corrections as suggested, and also responded at Pyrotec (talk). --Smerus (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It's quite a "strong GA (well appart from that uncited paragraph), and I suspect that this article could, at a future date, be a successful candidate at WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * However, see my comment, above, about citations need for the first paragraph of Reevaluation section.
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Yes.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Yes.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Many thanks. I have added a citation for the para you mention.--Smerus (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the reference. I did not see any real point in delaying the award of GA whilst it was done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)