Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 00:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing this. The very first edit I made on Wikipedia was to this article! I'll also be doing Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire). Articles on albums tend to pass GA much easier than articles on groups - there is less to write about, and they have a fairly clearly defined start and finish, so i may concentrate on that one first.

As for the FA comment. While GA and FA are both about improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia, they do have slightly different criteria. It does help to have an article pass through GA first, but reviewers are looking for slightly different things. For example - I'll just be looking to see that the article is referenced to reliable sources, while FA reviewers will also be looking at the formatting of the cites. It doesn't matter for GA requirements if the cites are simply crude links to websites - but FA requires that the cites are set up in a certain manner. And while GA requires clear prose, it is nowhere near as exacting as FA in use of language. I would suggest that after this GA is done, that a Peer review is done which will address many of the concerns that the FA reviewers will have. SilkTork *^YES! 00:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to review both of these articles, SilkTork. I appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy doing it! SilkTork *^YES! 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is clear and readable - information is easily understood / a few choppy sentence

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It's all history - is it possible to have other sections?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Some reverts of IP edits, but nothing much for high profile article, and not enough to justify semi-protection

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just tidying

• Lead might need reorganising. There's a lot of stuff about personnel changes in the first paragraph that might be better off moved further down in the lead or removed entirely - it is perhaps too detailed for a brief summary. SilkTork *^YES! 13:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article deals entirely with chronological history. This is an acceptable way of presenting the information - however a number of FA and GA articles do have other sections which deal with other aspects of the band - such as Live performances, Legacy, Musical style - this article could also have a section on British Invasion, dealing specifically with the Kinks role in that, as many readers will come to this article looking just for that information; also a possible section on the "British" or "English" aspect of the band's lyrics. This is a discussion point rather than a requirement, though it may impact on the "broad coverage" aspect of the GA criteria and will have to be considered. SilkTork *^YES! 13:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered that a while back, but hit a kind of block as to what to write. I'll think about adding a little something. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I must say that I'm not entirely pleased with how it turned out, but... "I hope you like it", to quote Ray Davies. How do you think the article is turning out? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you may not be entirely pleased with the new Legacy section, and it may need beefing up and a polish before taking to FA; however, I find it very valuable, especially in regard to the Britishness of the Kinks, and it helps us meet the broad coverage aspect of the GA criteria. Well done! There is still, however, the question of Live performances and British Invasion. Given that The Kinks may have been banned from USA because of their rowdy manner during live performances, a section in which their live style is mentioned, and there are some details of their major tours, would be useful. The British Invasion section may be overkill, and I don't think such a section is in articles on the other British Invasion acts - so you can ignore that suggestion! SilkTork *^YES! 12:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking good. The article mostly covers the requirements of the GA criteria. There's just the questions surrounding the lead, and the coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you take at look at the FAC, you'll notice that quite a few people were in favor of including all of those personnel changes in the lead. For a band that lasted over 30 years, I think it suitable to mention at least the most major changes in personnel. What do you think? - I.M.S. (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a question of balance I think. People do like to get the important details of the line-up, though how that is presented can be tricky. The tendency is to mention the main/significant members, and indicate any important line-ups changes. The presentation of the detail of the who and when of the less-essential members will depend on the amount of detail, and the importance of that detail in relation to other information. I see in the FA nomination that there was discussion on this mater, though I'm not sure there's any indication of a consensus decision to place all the detail in the first paragraph. I've made an adjustment that I feel follows the essence of WP:LEAD, though, as always, these things are open to interpretation. SilkTork *^YES! 12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your recent copyedits have vastly improved the article (especially the rearrangement of the lead - it looks great now). - I.M.S. (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think this is a wonderful article and I thank I.M.S. for doing all the work to make reading it such an engaging experience for me. The writing is excellent in my view. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That means a lot, Matisse. Thanks for the kind words! - I.M.S. (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclining to the thought that, even though a "Live performance" section would be useful and welcome, that the article as it stands essentially meets the broad coverage requirement of GA (which is lesser than the "comprehensive" requirement of FA). I'm just going to spend a little while cleaning up some minor aspects of the article - though the writing is clear enough to convey the information adequately for GA, there's just a few niggles here and there in regards to the amount of short choppy sentences. It's easier for me to just tidy them than to list them here. When I'm done, provided I spot nothing else, I'll likely pass this. SilkTork *^YES! 12:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's quite a mess over at The Kinks right now - I'm staying out of it. I would like to bring up one point, however - the table recently added by MadHatter. It appears to mess with the layout of the page, and I believe that readers could find out "who played on what" by connecting the dots with the discography and old lineup timeline table. What do others think? - I.M.S. (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks a bit awkward at the moment, but I think that is because the work is not completed. I'll stop copy-editing for a few days to allow people to complete what they are doing as I've had one edit conflict that resulted in a loss of material. I'll restore the Live performance section later as it is quite common to have such a section in GA and FA articles if one can be created - and I noticed as I was going through the article, that there was enough material in the article to justify the creation of one. But there's no rush. These things can wait. Give me a ping when it looks like the editing has calmed down. SilkTork *^YES! 17:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to engage in an edit war over this article. I have been reverted twice on the matter of the Live performance section, so I am now withdrawing from this review and closing it as not passed. It can be re-opened quite easily by relisting at WP:GAN. The article is very close to being passed as a Good Article, though edit warring is not helpful, the Personnel section needs sorting, and it does need a final copy-edit as some of the language is not good, and some unsourced personal opinion has crept in. The matter of the Live performance section is open to discussion, and is not in itself a GA fail - but the reverting certainly is. SilkTork *^YES! 20:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]