# Talk:Prayer for Ukraine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prayer for Ukraine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nearly there.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Refs 23 and 25 need formatting to make the info verifiable (e.g. {{Cite AV media}}).
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Qualifier: I neither read nor speak Ukrainian, but the links do not bring up any red flags, and the few English sources are reputable.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig shows only the lyrics, not unsurprisingly, are found elsewhere; I randomly googled a number of sentences from the article and they also came up nowhere except this article. The audio sample complies with WP:FUR and WP:NFC/Audio.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Nively so, particularly in these times.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Self-published under CC0 1.0, musical score from 1885
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

SN, thank you for fast but thorough reading! I don't quite know what you want for the recordings refs which I have frequently seen for classical music, and we even have this template for them. They open detailed entries on WorldCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I see that Grimes2 is in the process of reformatting these refs, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, say thank you to Grimes2  :)   SN54129 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The file shown at the top of the article has some mistakes (wrong slurs, wrong rhythm in bar 14). I have uploaded my own revised version on Commons. As a quite new user, I do not want to change the picture on my own. Thaddäus Rudolf (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

In the Lyrics section there is an English "Literary translation by Dmytro Shostak." Is there more information available somewhere as to who he is and when he did the translation? Is there a reference we can add? I've done a brief Google search but didn't find anything logical. papageno (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

papageno, Dmytro Shostak in Ukrainian Wiki.
first post translation on Facebook
Dmytro Shostak in Facebook. --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks, Микола Василечко. --papageno (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)