Talk:Robert Commanday/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 14:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aza24. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be the one reviewing this nomination. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

 * Berkeley Historical Plaque Project's e-plaques are user-generated content, and are therefore not reliable. From the website: "Written by you and by us, they present a serendipitous overview of Berkeley". They do not seme to have an editorial board, so there is no way of knowing whether the content there is actually verified.
 * Classical Voice North America is classified by Muck Rack as a blog. They say they have an editorial team, but they don't mention who they are, or what editorial guidelines they follow.

The other sources in the article seem to be reliable, but keep in mind that two of them are closely connected to the subject, i.e. the interview, and his obituary in the San Francisco Classical Voice.

Prose
The article is otherwise well-written and follows the manual of style.
 * He was survived by his wife Mary, ... - See MOS:SURVIVEDBY: This isn't an obituary, but a biographical account of someone's entire life, so this wording should be avoided. The rest of the article should detail his personal life in mostly chronological order, so this seems very out of place.

Coverage
His life spans nearly a hundred years. Is there really only one source from earlier than his death in 2015?

Neutrality
The article has a lot of quotes from other people cited from obituaries, which will obviously mostly be positive. The first paragraph of the career section seems pretty egregious in this sense, as these comments are listed alongside his career accomplishments.

Overall
With only two non-primary reliable sources in the article, I do not feel comfortable calling this a good article. It may even fail WP:GNG, as the sources used are very scant in this regard.

About the other criteria:
 * Stability - ✅ - No edit warring or content disputes
 * Illustrated - ✅ - The image in the article has a valid fair-use rationale and is relevant.

With all this in mind, this will unfortunately have to be a quick-fail, per the first criterion for immediate failures. Ga criterion 2b: "all inlince citations are from reliable sources" - Good portions of the article are from unreliable sources, so this is very far away from meeting the standards of a GA. If you feel like you've significantly improved upon these points, you may renominate this article in the future. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)