Talk:Live Forever (Oasis song)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Live Forever (Oasis song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * Everything eles looks fine. The only thing I have any concerns with is that the "Music videos" section is unreferenced. I'm not sure the lead needs to be two pars, but that's no biggie. Once the Music Videos section is referenced, it should be a pass. Peanut4 (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The musis videos themselves are references. Is there anything in particular you want referenced? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's policy then no worries. But the following statements could theoretically be challenged.
 * "Two music videos were made for "Live Forever" for British and American airplay."
 * "Some of the UK version of the promo video was filmed at the Strawberry Fields memorial, the area of New York City's Central Park dedicated to John Lennon."
 * "The house on the cover of the single is 251 Menlove Avenue, the childhood home of Lennon."
 * "Both videos are included on the 2004 Definitely Maybe DVD." Peanut4 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Definitely Maybe features both videos, so that is a reference. You can see Strawberry Fields in the UK video. I could probably do without the single cover trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the article would be better for those claims to be referenced. This link would do for points 1 and 4. I'd keep the single cover info in, although I can't find a WP:RS online. I'm sure one will exist somewhere in print. And I can't find anything on the promo video at this moment. Peanut4 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can try and find a ref for the first point, but there's no need for one for the fourth one, because it says in the prose that the DVD has both videos, so inline citing the DVD would be redundant and unnecessary. It's the same reason you don't have to cite the songs that appear on an album, or the name of a chapter in a book; it's clearly indicated on the primary source and not really challengeable. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've referenced the Brit and American video bit and readded and referenced the info on the cover art which I think should be in the article. Cavie78 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Final review
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut4 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)