Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
I've been looking at the article as well as reviewing another GAN for most today. I've made no alterations to the article (its often more effective to wikilink or correct a typo rather than list it in the review as a "problem", wait for corrective action to take place and then reassess), so my footprint on this article is very small.

To be precise, I'm not listing any corrective actions, so I'm now going straight to the final assessment stage. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A comprehensive, informative and easy to read article on Leoš Janáček.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * YES. The WP:lead is perhaps rather thin in respective of its "summary function", but not sufficient to merit an "On Hold" at GAN.
 * 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:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A strong GA.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A strong GA.
 * A strong GA.

I'm awarding this article GA-status without hesitation. I suspect that with further work it could make WP:FAC if that was the aim of its contributors. This was not intended as an FA-assessment. If it was, I would have expected the lead to have been expanded to provide more of a summary of the main points of the article and the one paragraph without a citation. But as this is GA, I'm not going to.

Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pyrotec for the review and for your kind words. I, together with patient and overall fantastic help of User:Haploidavey, compiled major part of the article. Yesterday, I've noticed your notification at Talk:Leoš Janáček/GA1 and I've reread the whole article again. I have several suggestions for future improvements:


 * The article was written mainly with the help of Czech sources, some older and others more recent. I think it would benefit from revising some of the claims with the help of up-to-date English scholarly sources (the recently published English literature on Janáček is more detailed than Czech), most notably with John Tyrrell's two-part book Janáček: Years of a Life. I don't think the article is factually incorrect, but it should follow rather modern musicological opinions on Janáček ... some of the passages in it seem to me a bit 'romantic' :) But on the other hand, we attempted to create an interesting piece of reading, not an unimaginative list of scientific facts.


 * The section 'Style' is quite incomplete and omits several important stylistic trademarks of Janáček's style, but I think it covers the most important elements in a good way. There are of course many ways how to write such a complex article, one author might emphasize different elements than another one etc.


 * I'll try to clarify some unclear passages that I noticed during my reading, but I think those are really minor issues.


 * Thank you again for your time, I'm really surprised that the article passed so easily :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In case this might encourage anyone: I bottled out of doing the GA review because I don't read Czech and couldn't access many of the sources, but this article strikes me, too, as already well on its way to FAC quality. --Stfg (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stfg. I'll think about further improvements. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)