Talk:Harvard Musical Association

GA
1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarizing the topic, and the remaining text is organized into a system of hierarchical sections;
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;
 * (d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * (b) the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page);
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * (d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
 * (a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
 * (b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
 * (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
 * (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
 * (a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
 * (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
 * (c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Does anyone know the approximate date of the Boston Music Hall etching? I think that would be helpful. There are 3 occurrences of the word "current" in the article. These should be replaced by something like "as of 2006" or "21st century plans" - so that if this article is burned on a CD version of Wikipedia, some future reader can know immediately when the activity was occurring. (GA - approved) Appraiser 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:
 * 1) "They proposed the organization of a new society, the chief object of which would be “...the promotion of musical taste and science in the University...to enrich the walls of Harvard with a complete musical library...and to prepare the way for regular musical instruction in the College." Quotes need inline citations directly after the statement.
 * 2) "Of these concerts, which took place in the Music Hall, King's Dictionary of Boston reported in 1883: “The greatest works of the greatest masters have been given at these concerts, the standard of whose programmes has been kept at the highest, with the view, in part, of educating the taste of the musical public in what is greatest and best without regard to fashion or popular demand.”"
 * 3) "As Arthur Foote said: “When a harp was needed in the orchestra..., one of us would do the best we could to replace it by playing its part on an upright piano."
 * 4) "With bequeaths from various members, it soon assembled many books and scores which were assessed by the Salem Register in 1843 as constituting the “largest and best musical library in the country.”"
 * 5) "The current orchestra is substantially less active than some predecessors: its most recent public concert was in 1948."
 * 6) "After these performances and hors d'œuvres, ninety members of the Association ascended to the Marsh Room where, over the next three hours, a seven-course candlelight feast was consumed. The seven accompanying wines came from the same regions, and in three instances the same vineyards, as those served in 1892."

Other issue:
 * Image:HMA Logo.png needs a fair use rationale on the image's page detailing why it should be used for this article. Also, consider adding a caption describing the logo.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProject so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Failed
Unfortunately, since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)