Talk:Prayer for Ukraine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Nearly there.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Well done.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Refs 23 and 25 need formatting to make the info verifiable (e.g. Cite AV media).
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Qualifier: I neither read nor speak Ukrainian, but the links do not bring up any red flags, and the few English sources are reputable.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig shows only the lyrics, not unsurprisingly, are found elsewhere; I randomly googled a number of sentences from the article and they also came up nowhere except this article. The audio sample complies with WP:FUR and WP:NFC/Audio.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Nively so, particularly in these times.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Self-published under CC0 1.0, musical score from 1885
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * SN, thank you for fast but thorough reading! I don't quite know what you want for the recordings refs which I have frequently seen for classical music, and we even have this template for them. They open detailed entries on WorldCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that Grimes2 is in the process of reformatting these refs, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, say thank you to  :)    SN54129  15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * SN, thank you for fast but thorough reading! I don't quite know what you want for the recordings refs which I have frequently seen for classical music, and we even have this template for them. They open detailed entries on WorldCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that Grimes2 is in the process of reformatting these refs, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, say thank you to  :)    SN54129  15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)