Talk:Double Allergic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Double Allergic has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Double Allergic is part of the "Powderfinger albums" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Double Allergic.jpg

Image:Double Allergic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been added G1ggy! Review me! 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Woot. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Assessment

This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. I only had to make a few susbsequent changes which was for the punctuation and grammar, per MOS. And, below is the assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (no edit wars etc.)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Further anaylsis on findings:

  • The album image was correctly tagged, used appropriately and a fair-use rationale was applied. YesY
  • I can find no original research. YesY
  • Everything is reliably sourced and is verifiable. YesY
  • Grammar, prose and spelling is excellent.YesY
  • Everything is readable, and doesn't incorporate words that a beginning editor or reader wouldn't understand.YesY
  • The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. YesY
  • It avoids POV style, however some lines like "rather than a high cost producer as they did with Tony Cohen on Parables for Wooden Ears", may need to be modified.YesY