Talk:To Zion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Egad, nearly five months since nomination! I'm sorry you've been waiting so long, – I'll get started on this review tonight or tomorrow. Great song, great album. Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Bronx Langford 21:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No prob! I'm still checking the sources, but everything is promising so far. I will say that the usage of "most notably", such as in the lede, should probably be avoided, and a page number for citation #9 (second paragraph of the background section, to Nickson's book) would be helpful. Dylan 620  in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 10:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on it! Bronx Langford 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Hill won record-breaking five Grammy Awards is rather clunky, but I imagine that could be fixed with something as simple as slotting an 'a' in between "Hill" and "won". Also, Otherwise, the prose is excellent – this is an engaging and professionally written article. I do have a couple stylistic nitpicks: namely that spaces should be on both sides of en dashes (referring specifically to Zion David Marley–Hill's oldest son and the subject of "To Zion"–surprised Hill – if you're going to keep the non-spaced dash structure, then these should be replaced with em dashes); and that apostrophes should be used instead of double-quotation marks if a quoted text itself uses quotation marks (referring specifically to "The choir's chant of "marching" propels the song to another level of intense devotion ..."). And thank you for fixing the bit in the lede that I mentioned earlier!
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * High returns on Earwig's tool are false positives resulting from the usage of quotes. Citation #16 fails to verify that the reported value of the settlement was $5 million, BUT another Rolling Stone piece – which is already used in this article as citation #13 – does verify this, so you could probably just use that same RS piece to source the information in question. I'm assuming good faith WRT citation #18, which I seem to be unable to access.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All sections I would expect to see in a well-developed song article are present and flushed out without veering into irrelevant detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article successfully conveys the song's acclaim without lending any praise of its own.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Calm seas for miles.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I've approved the FUR for the single cover, and the Santana photo is licensed appropriately for use.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm going to pass this conditionally – what quibbles I do have are very small and should be easily fixable, and after how long this article had to wait for a review, I don't think it would be fair to put this review on hold over such minor issues. All in all, you've done a great job here, – I hope you consider submitting this article to FAC at some point.  Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 02:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've fixed all the quibbles in question and have also made citation #18 accessible online with a Google Books URL. Thank you so much for all the positive feedback and for agreeing to review the article for GA in the first place! I'll definitely be submitting it to FAC as well. Bronx Langford 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)