Talk:Chimes of Freedom (song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change {{reflist}} to {{relist|2}}

OK, I've done this. By the way, I've been working with Rlendog (the user who submitted "Chimes of Freedom" for GAN) on this article and as such I intend to be fairly heavily involved in this GA review. I'm looking forward to working with you CrowzRSA, I just thought I should introduce myself and let you know who I am. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the (see 1964 in music)?

The release of the album is mentioned on the 1964 in music page. This is the standard way of linking to these kind of pages in music articles - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Internal_links. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put Link to "Atlanta, Georgia" in line 5 of "Bob Dylan's Version"

I don't really have a problem with doing this but surely that would be overlinking? Wikipedia guidelines state that you shouldn't link to major geographic locations unless they're particularly relevant to the topic of the article. See WP:OVERLINK. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this review stands at this point, but I did incorporate the requested links to Atlanta and Toronto. It may be overlinking, but probably borderline, so can't hurt. Rlendog (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Toronto in line 6 of "Bob Dylan's Version" to "Toronto, Canada," and put in link.

See my above comment re: overlinking. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Line 1 of "Bob Dylan's version," reword ""Chimes of Freedom" was written in early 1964, shortly after the release of the The Times They Are a-Changin' album, during a road trip that..." to something like ""Chimes of Freedom" was written shortly after the release of the "The Times They Are a-Changin'" album in early 1964 during a road trip that..." and add link to The Times They Are a-Changin if there is one.

OK, I've done this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox's "Another Side of Bob Dylan track listing," make "Chimes of Freedom" bold.

OK, I've done this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need the "External Links?" If fine if you keep it...

Only my opinion, but I think we may as well keep it. It's certainly relevant to the article - especially since Bob Dylan is so famous for his lyrics. Plus, it links to Dylan's official website and is therefore a very reliable source for the song's lyrics. That's only my twopence worth though, I could go either way on this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, all references are properly cited, good job!

Just so you know, I'm going to move the info about The Byrds' version out of the "Cover versions" section and into its own section. I'm doing this for two reasons; firstly, because The Byrds version is arguably the best known cover of the song and secondly because the Byrds' related info takes up so much of the existing "Cover versions" section that, to me, it's really crying out for its own section. I've been meaning to do this for a couple of weeks now but I didn't realise that the article's GA review was going to start so soon. So I'll get to it now. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done this now but at Rlendog's suggestion I made The Byrds' section a sub-section of "Cover versions", rather than split it off into its own sepertate section. I think this works better and makes the whole "Cover versions" section much clearer. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what is happening with this review - it has been under review for two and a half months? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person who started reviewing it apparently just dropped it. I suspect he was new to reviewing, and so had not marked the article as being under review, and also had picked this article from the bottom of the list (and so maybe just dropped this one and moved to an article higher in the queue. Or maybe thought the article was GA-worthy but didn't know how to close it. In any case, this article has been awaiting a proper review, or at least a conclusion to the review, ever since. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will pick it up. I will start in an hour or so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I made a few minor copy-edits for style
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references check out, all links are live, assume good faith for print sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough, well researched
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
No images used.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have no hesitation in passing this as a good article, sorry that you have had to wait so long for the review to be completed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]