Talk:7/27/GA1

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 07:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -  Y 10:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It contains copyright infringements -  Y 10:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -  Y 10:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Y 10:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit
What do you mean? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, as stated below, they are lots of genres. Even if it was "American pop girl group" etc, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

General prose

edit
See the source, it as the peak. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Take a look here Metacritic#Metascores. They aren't usualy mentioned one by one, this is just an agregate. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think you've misunderstood. But, looking at other music articles, this is how it's done, so it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

Notes & References

edit

Image review

edit
As I didn't upload it, I have no idea. If you want I can remove it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I took another look, it is in good faith, regardless, so it's fine. I'm not going to raise an objection. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Done

GA Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Comments

edit

@Lee Vilenski: I'm not sure if UrbanJE is on wiki anymore. Do you mind if I adress the issues you raised? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

MarioSoulTruthFan Absolutely. Go ahead 13:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Lee Vilenski: I have almost adressed the issue you raised, nevetheless the commercial performance section is quite poor. I tried to improved it a bit, but it needs some serious work. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
The rest of the article looks pretty good. I don't think the section is all that bad. It probably just needs a slight bit of expansion, and a little tightening. What would you like me to do with the review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
From my point of view, you could take a look if I addressed the changes you wanted and then give me some time to expand the commercial performance section. Nevertheless, it is up to you as the reviewer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Of course. I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Having a read through (I did a little cleanup), I don't think the section will fail a GA. It probably needs a bit of work (especially at FA), but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the section, so I'll go ahead and pass this GA. Thanks for stepping in to rescue it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply