Talk:Them (band)/GA1

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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. Media) are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 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. Media) are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * A. Media) are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Article is stable. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Image has appropriate Copyright tags. SilkTork (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Query


 * Fail
 * The Gloria audio clip does not have a valid rationale for use in this article. And the caption is inadequate. See Van_Morrison for a more appropriate caption (though overlong - much of that could be put into the main body of the article). And provide a valid rationale for THIS article in File:Gloria - Them.ogg. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are essential facts missing from the first section, and inaccurate details are given (such as Morrison forming the R&B club, when he was not one of the organisers, but one of the performers). Them's debut on 10th April is not mentioned (nor that Morrison wasn't present for the debut). Nor is their second gig, the one where Morrison appears live with them for the first time. But we are given a random date of 14 April 1964 for the first of the Them adverts. The adverts are interesting, and are a part of the story, but that date is not significant, and it can just be mentioned that a series of adverts were placed in the local paper. By giving the date a reader would assume a significance that isn't there. SilkTork (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sourcing. Challengeable facts such as "The single, released in August, did not prove successful." are uncited, and the Formation section relies on one end of paragraph cite to four pages. Closer inline citation to specific pages is needed. SilkTork (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

 * "Them were a Northern Irish showband" The showband description is interesting, though unsourced and not mentioned in the lead. Van Morrison started his music career playing in showbands - The Monarchs and then the Manhattan Showband. But was Them ever regarded as a showband? SilkTork (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I just checked Rogan, and from the point that Morrison joined The Gamblers (who became Them) they were an RnB group. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Citing is too vague. It is not helpful to provide just one cite to one source for the entire Formation section, and to then expect people to search through four pages (that's about the same word size as the entire article) to check one detail. Please provide inline cites to the actual page. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a GA requirement, but is useful, and while you're doing the cites you might as well consider doing it: as Rogan's book is on Google, you can cite direct to the page with ease. I'll put in one cite as an example. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)  Example: . SilkTork (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "In April 1964, Van Morrison established an R&B club at the Maritime Hotel". That's not an accurate description. Rogan says that Morrison responded to an advert placed by the 3Js for musicians to help form an R&B club. Have you read our article on Van Morrison? I helped write that and take it to GA, and while that was around 10 years ago and the article has no doubt changed over the years, I do think that the essential facts there can still be relied on. Read Van_Morrison. SilkTork (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

On hold

 * I haven't finished the review as it appears at this stage that there are a number of issues which indicate that the article is still some way from being at GA level. More research (and more accurate research) is required, and closer and more helpful inline citing to sources used. It will take some time to build the article up to GA level; however, I have known determined, enthusiastic and resourceful contributors turn a failing GAN around in a week or two, so I will put this review on hold for a week to see what happens. If there is an encouraging development of the article (or at least to the Origins section) then I will keep the review open for longer. SilkTork (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Fail
No edits have been made, so I'm closing this GAN as a fail. After the work has been done the article can be renominated. SilkTork (talk) 04:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)