Talk:Twice Through the Heart/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 2 images, both WPCommons-hosted, one claims public domain, the other Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 2 images, both WPCommons-hosted, one claims public domain, the other Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Notes
 * For the References, there are templates to assist you cite web, cite news. Please make ref 1 & 2 & 15 consistent with the other formats, in ref 17 "accessed" is not necessary if there is no url, and include the publisher in ref 18. Include the |accessdate= parameter for the url in ref 8.
 * Don't put citations in the title (move ref 13 out of the section title).
 * Reference 25 -Nicholas Williams "Classical review: London Sinfonietta, QEH: Farewells with violence", The Independent, has the wrong url link (it goes to The Daily Telegraph).


 * Thank you for the review. I have acted on all the recommendations except:
 * I have preferred not to use the citation templates. I have instead reviewed the footnotes again, trying to make the format consistent on capitalisation, italics, date format etc and in the process ficing a couple of spelling errors. I believe the notes are now in order.
 * On 17, I added in the url rather than remove the access date.
 * I have also reworked the lead slightly, preferring two paragraphs now and put the publisher's description ahead of ENO's.
 * Thanks again for looking at this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. The refs look good and consistent now. maclean (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)