Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've read through this article and made a few minor edits, but there is a citation needed flag in Legacy. I'm just going to work my way through the article one more time. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was something that was there when I originally looked at the article to get it to GA status. Couldn't source it, so I removed it. An IP added it recently, so I tagged it to give them time to source it. I would remove the entire sentence that is tagged. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a fairly short article, so I'm just going to do an overall summary. There were a couple of points that came to the "fore" during my final but they are more in the way of comments:
 * In the Filming/Pompeii subsection I thought it might be useful to wikilink "24 track recorder" but that was not so easy as Multitrack recording is a general article and Ampex is far more specific, but having checked all the references there was no way to know whether they were using Ampex (tm) equipment.
 * In the Outtakes section there is a mention of "Archives du Film du Bois D'Arcy near Paris", which seems to be Fort de Bois-d'Arcy, but the sources don't provide the necessary confirmation that they are the same. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has appropriate reference section:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * There is one non-free image, but justification for its use is given
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * There is one non-free image, but justification for its use is given
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the review quickly and diligently. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)