Talk:Syro/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my favourite records from last year - I'm looking forward to reviewing this :) — sparklism hey! 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception

 * There are three repeat links in this section: Drukqs, The Guardian and Rolling Stone
 * ✅ Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Images/media

 * The three album art images (File:Aphex twin syro.jpg, File:Aphex Twin - Syro alt cover.jpg and File:Syro equipment graphic.jpg) are all tagged as needing a WP:FUR. I would recommend using Non-free use rationale album cover for the rationale (not the license).
 * ✅ Added rationales. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The music file File:Aphex Twin - XMAS EVET10 sample.ogg is also tagged for FUR. It may be that the parameter just needs setting to 'yes' here, because the rationale is already there.
 * ✅ Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Background

 * "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which was redone in 2007." How about something like "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which James reworked in 2007"?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * " under the same pseudonym" → " under the Caustic Window alias"?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Accolades

 * "Syro was nominated for, and subsequently won, a Grammy Award.." → "Syro won a Grammy Award.." because it's just simpler to say it this way
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary
This is a very high quality article as it stands. I'll be going through everything in depth as part of this review and adding to my comments above, but this is already close to GA status, from what I can see. — sparklism hey! 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is looking really good. I've got a few (minor) concerns about the prose, which I'm too busy IRL to detail right now - I'll provide some commentary on this over the next day or two. Thanks — sparklism hey! 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry this has taken me so long. I've added a couple of points above - I'm not a copyediting expert by any means, but most of what I see seems reasonable enough. I'd recommend taking this to WP:GOCE at some point, but I won't let this get in the way of the GA review. — sparklism hey! 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this as a good article - well done! And also congrats to, who has been a huge contributor to this article. Thanks — sparklism hey! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing this :) Aria1561 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)