Talk:National Repertory Orchestra/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Iadmc (talk · contribs) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor quibble: "In 1988, the NRO was the only American orchestra invited to perform at the Seoul Olympics and then extended its tour to Taiwan and Japan" better as "In 1988, the NRO was the only American orchestra invited to perform at the Seoul Olympics; it then extended its tour to Taiwan and Japan". Also, I "cheated" and made a couple of minor changes for copy editing and to move one reference to a more helpful place (A sentence or two later). I think this is allowed? Fine otherwise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All looks fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I think a lot more could be drawn from the sources, especially numbers 6 an 11 (used only for the alumni). These two could also be used inline in the body, too. Otherwise all good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some content disputes re notable alumni but these seem to have been resolved by citing sources for each one.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One is a fair use low-res logo; the other is from US Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division with "No known restrictions on publication".
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All good, though a photo of them performing would be even better...
	7. Overall assessment.	Could use the citations more (##6 and 11, particularly) and I think more can be drawn from the references but as it stands, this passes.