Talk:Ysbeidiau Heulog/GA1

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

Reviewer: – Chase  ( talk ) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fail criteria

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including, , ,  or large numbers of , , or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

This article doesn't meet any of the quick-fail criteria, so I will now assess this article by the good article criteria.

Good article criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "If there's any song that doesn't sum up [Mwng] it's ["Ysbeidiau Heulog"!]" Change this to "If there's any song that doesn't sum up [Mwng] it's ['Ysbeidiau Heulog']!"✅
 * The accolades table could easily be transferred to prose in the critical response section.✅ Have left the table though as it sits better with other SFA single articles.
 * Neither of these have been addressed. Also, when the table content is transferred into prose, it will not need to be there (tables are generally not used for a lone achievement). – Chase  ( talk ) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have forgot to hit 'submit'. Changed now. I disagree about the table though I'm afraid. Tables can be used to display material in a particular way alongside mentions in the prose (see chart position table for example) Cavie78 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Chart tables are not necessary when there is only one chart appearance. There is only one achievement here so the table is not necessary. – Chase  ( talk ) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only say that I disagree. I think this is a personal issue rather than something that's required to pass GA. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you refuse to change this and it's not a part of the GA criteria, I suppose it can stay to pass this GAN. I still think it's unnecessary and if you were to nominate this for FA, other editors would likely tell you the same thing. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Remove italicization from non-print media in the references (BBC, Allmusic, etc.).
 * Do you mean in the references section itself? As far as I know its not possible to do this as the template auto formats references in italics.
 * You can add italics around the non-print media, for example: Allmusic . – Chase  ( talk ) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't know you could do this, will get on it Cavie78 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked another user about this and we're of the opinion that excessive use of code is not desirable and that the formatting of references in such a way in the reference section itself is not mandatory - the template itself auto formats references into italics rather than allowing the user to use Wiki markup. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but this is not a major issue. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of the musical structure section is unsourced.
 * The source is the song itself, I don't believe it needs to be sourced further as it is merely descriptive.
 * That is called original research, which we do not condone here on Wikipedia. – Chase  ( talk ) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not original research it's a description with the song as the source. See the 'Works of fiction' section here
 * The works of fiction section does not apply here. Songs are not fiction. – Chase  ( talk ) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, that page is an essay which explicitly states, "This page is not policy, and should not be applied as if it were." – Chase  ( talk ) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood my point. I was using the essay to show where I'm coming from not as a justification in its own right. The primary source of the section is the song itself backed up by the musical score book which I cite which provides information about chords, naming of sections of the song as 'chorus' etc. It is a 'musical structure' section not a 'musical style' section - I am not comparing the song to the work of another group, giving my own opinion about it or drawing any conclusions, I am merely describing it in a way that any reasonable person could simply by listening to the song itself. Cavie78 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't get how this couldn't be resolved with a simple citation to piano/vocal/guitar arrangements but looking at the section more closely, it seems most of this doesn't need a citation. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this on hold for one week so that improvements can be made to the article. If my comments are not addressed by then, I will fail this article's GAN. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments have been addressed or discussed, seems fine to promote this to GA now. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this on hold for one week so that improvements can be made to the article. If my comments are not addressed by then, I will fail this article's GAN. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments have been addressed or discussed, seems fine to promote this to GA now. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments have been addressed or discussed, seems fine to promote this to GA now. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)