Talk:Guto Puw

GA reviews
There's no image copyright issues, since there are images in the article ;). No neutrality issues.  However the lead WP:LEDE is too short, and the citations sometimes put right before the comma or period - not good.  The reference density (number of sources per paragraph) is good, and would be very good if there were many more paragraphs like these.  The article may have around a 50% chance of passing.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was reviewing this, so edit conflict. But I've failed its GA nom.  Reasons: Lead is to short, NPOV issues ("It is a challenging piece, employing graphic scores and written directions to the players containing notes and motifs to be followed, and the players' creativity is stimulated by words and phrases in the score"), no images.  -  G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will return to these points later when I have more time. Three points are made about failure:


 * 1) "Lead is too short" - this can be fixed, and I would have thought would be a "hold" rather than a "fail". Later note: ✅
 * 2) "NPOV" - only one sentence identified, based on the description of the piece used by the source. Can be changed, and will be, to make it clear that this is the reviewer's description, not mine. Again, this could have been a "Hold" not a fail. Later note ✅
 * 3) "no image" - well, as I read the criteria, there is no requirement for a GA to contain an image! "Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly." I have no free image to use; pictures of Guto Puw on the web exist, but would not be usable here as fair use since they are potentially replaceable. I have linked to two images of his scores, which are perhaps as interesting as a photo of what Puw looks like (and Puw's own appearance can be seen at some of the references I use). Again, I'm puzzled as to why this merits a "fail".  Later note ❌ Bencherlite 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now addressed two of these issues, as above, and will ask the reviewer to think again. Bencherlite 16:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Images was not my only failing criteria. However, my interpretation of the GA criteria is that images certainly make for a better article.  If, as you say, there are no free images available, then   I see no other reasons for it to be failed (I didn't place it on hold before mainly because of the image concern, not realising that it wasn't fixable.  Had it been minor NPOV and lead, I probably would have...).  So I have added this article to the GA list. -  G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)