Talk:Johnny's Theme/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beatleswhobeachboys (talk · contribs) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ATinySliver! Decided I'd give this one a go.


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Good flow, easy to read
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * The reference section should be organized differently; see "Band on the Run"
 * I have yet to find books/passages specific to the subject; new search in progress.
 * I have yet to find books/passages specific to the subject; new search in progress.


 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Sites like Amazon, Discogs, and Youtube aren't very trustworthy for info; books / articles by reputable organizations are more solid
 * Cites are specific to data that is non-controversial and can only be confirmed by the sites that compile them.
 * Anyone can edit / upload to these sites. Unless (for Youtube / Amazon) they are verified by a reliable source (ex. The Tonight Show's official channel), it could easily by false.
 * In progress. Amazon, Discogs and 45cat have been replaced per ALBUM/Sources by the actual publication data, which allows editors to search for confirmation. The two YouTube citations provide proof that musicians continued (through the access dates) to play the song; each is the official page/channel of the musicians/venue. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 01:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * Can you be specific?
 * Mostly in the infoboxes
 * Sorry, I'm lost; I see nothing in the infoboxes that isn't cited, either in the infoboxes (some are invisible) or in the body. Again, with apologies, can you be specific? (Meantime, one of them is now fixed.) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Release date, genre, label, etc. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all there, mostly in the body. In fact, per INFOBOXREF, only data that is not repeated in the body has visible refs in the infoboxes. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  02:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all there, mostly in the body. In fact, per INFOBOXREF, only data that is not repeated in the body has visible refs in the infoboxes. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  02:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The article is very brief and a lot of other topics are missing: Did it have an impact as a single? Did the show keep using the theme after Carson's departure? Its critical opinion / legacy should be mentioned as well.
 * In progress.


 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Concerns
 * Sources are lacking: although it has a few reliable sources (CNN, Rapid City Journal, etc.), a lot aren't really super reliable.
 * The article is missing a few essential bits of information, mostly in the aftermath of the track's use. Some quotes from Anka or Carson would also help the article along. Expansion is definitely needed.

I'm sorry to say that the article, as of now, isn't up to the requirements. It has great flow and is stable, but it doesn't quite have the content and sources to justify a GA rank. With a little more reliable info, though, it probably get up to GA status. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was rather under the impression that I had up to a seven-day process to work on your concerns, as opposed to an immediate fail. (More specifically, your review includes seven passes, three fails, and one "don't know".) I respectfully request that you withdraw "fail" in favor of "undetermined" and give me time to work on the nom, rather than re-list it for another review several more months down the line. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ATinySliver I changed it to undetermined. Sorry I was too hasty with the review - I generally like to go through an do the whole review at once when its fresh in my mind, but I should have left time to give you a chance to say something (by the way, the three fails are lacking pretty severely, so that's what led to my failing of the article). My apologies, once again: I haven't reviewed many GAs, so I'm a little inexperienced. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. I have added some comments (and one question) above. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe I have found everything encyclopedic that there is to find (on the other hand, I'd thought so before ), and I believe the article is up to snuff. Looking forward to addressing any additional concerns. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 22:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @ATinySliver: a definite improvement: still a little brief, but I believe that I can pass the article. Congratulations! Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much obliged! As always, I will look periodically for any improvements. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  23:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)