Talk:Parsifal/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

#:: WP:LEAD suggests four paragraphs at most - the lead should also summarise the entire article which it does not at present. #::There are a number of stray single sentences, recommend a thorough copy-edit to improve the style. #::Media section, the sound link is almost certainly a copyright violation. #::A list of traditionally allocated leitmotifs, in musical notation and midi format, can be found at.[52] Apart from the fact that the site linked to is not an RS, this sort of link is not appropriate. #::Ref # 28 is a deadlink and also to geocities a blacklisted site for Wikipedia. I repaired other dead links with WP:CHECKLINKS. #::Ref # 50 should be formatted with the appropriate citation template for consistency, also refs # 5, 7, 27, 32 and 50. #::Ref # 52 does not appear top be a WP:RS. #::For consistency parenthetical citations should be replaced with inline citations. #::Statements such as Parsifal was a major source of inspiration for T. S. Eliot's poem "The Waste Land", and also adapted for the screen (in a highly controversial fashion) by director Hans-Jürgen Syberberg. and The unusual harmonic progressions in the leitmotifs which structure the piece, as well as the heavy chromaticism of Act II, make it a difficult work to parse musically. need citations. #::On hold for seven fourteen days for above issues to be addressed. (extended at request of User:Peter cohen. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Now reduced to four paragraphs, which I think adequately introduce the article. I don't really think it's possible (or really desirable) to summarize such a complicated entry. -- Klein zach  23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is probably just about enough, but if anyone wants to take this article further to FAC it will need looking at properly.
 * I wondered if the intro should summarise in as few words as possible, the plot of the opera? I've tried to do this in the past, but it has usually been removed.--Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This might introduce more problems. the Arthurian knight Parzival (Percival) and his quest for the Holy Grail. is a summary of the plot
 * Will remove until we can find something that doesn't violate US copyright.--Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * fixed. --Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * fixed (I hope)--Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Waste Land statement until we can decide if it is relevant. Can't comment on the obscure musical stuff.--Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith for off-line sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The plot section is thorough, possibly verging on being too large.
 * I agree....--Dogbertd (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The concerns found in the review have been addressed. There is still room for improvement, this could become a featured article if sufficient work is put in.  I would suggest putting it up for peer review when you feel it is near FA critieria. Keep GA listing. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)