Talk:Linn Isobarik/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review
NOTE: Please respond, below this image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * File:Linn Kan.jpg = image transferred to Commons. Tagged as requiring review over there. ❌
 * File:Linn Isobarik DMS loudspeaker (with in-built crossover) in a domestic setting.jpg = OTRS confirmation on Commons.
 * File:Linn Isobarik DMS loudspeaker enclosure.png = original image on Commons.
 * File:Linn Products D20-LP-1 tweeter, sourced from Hiquphon in Denmark.jpg = original image on Commons.
 * File:Linn Isobarik tweeters taken out of different Isobariks.jpg = image transferred to Commons. Tagged as requiring review over there. Probably a simple matter as it already has OTRS confirmation. ❌.
 * File:Linn Isobarik loudspeaker crossover - early version inside isobaric chamber.jpg = image transferred to Commons. Tagged as requiring review over there. Probably a simple matter as it already has OTRS confirmation. ❌.
 * File:Linn Isobarik loudspeaker crossover from 1988 - Andrea12.jpg = image transferred to Commons. Tagged as requiring review over there. Probably a simple matter as it already has OTRS confirmation. ❌.
 * File:Linn Isobarik loudspeaker external crossover in stand.jpg = image transferred to Commons. Tagged as requiring review over there. Probably a simple matter as it already has OTRS confirmation. ❌.

NOTE: Please respond, below this image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Linn Kan.jpg is one I created myself, so there really ought not to be any issue. All the others have OTRS tickets, so review should only be a formality – this is not something I am in control of. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, one option would be you could try posting to commons:Commons:Village pump and/or commons:Commons:Help desk for assistance with those particular images. You're right, review is probably a formality and just a matter of removing those pesky transfer tags, but best to go the proper routes in this case. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Request made. Hopefully this won't take long. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review
&mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Upon inspection of article edit history, going back over one month, I see one instance of vandalism. The user was blocked indef. Just something to keep an eye on..
 * 2) Checked talk page edit history. No issues or conflicts there..

Citations review
&mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I've added some cites needed tags that need to be addressed.
 * 2) I'd really appreciate it if the cites could be standardized using WP:CIT templates. There is a bit of inconsistency in formatting from one citation to the next, makes it a bit confusing and more difficult to evaluate the citations. Using WP:CIT templates would help increase standardization and make it much easier for me to evaluate the adherence of citations to WP:RS, and WP:V, and other site policies.
 * Done. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 10:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Okay, that makes it easier. Several cites are missing fields, such as accessdate, date, publisher, author, etc. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All citations fields have been populated where the metadata exists, citations have been resequenced, and I have now created archives for the citations where these are original content. Note that courtesy links are for the purposes of WP:V during reviews, and have not been archived due to possible copyright implications. I believe that by doing so, we obviate the need to include access dates, which are supposedly useful for retrieval of content from dynamic pages. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am ejecting to this review page all the courtesy links used in the article: --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Certainly www.webcitation.org is much more durable than www.wordpress.com. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Thanks for being so responsive to my recommendations, above. The image thing is not a big deal, hopefully someone will help fix the formatting soon of those pages on Commons. Great job, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)