Talk:Ericdoa/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Veyhola (talk · contribs) 16:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: MFTP Dan (talk · contribs) 00:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, this one seems simple. As a hardstuck silver Valorant player, I remember when ">One" came out and found it enjoyable. I didn't realize he was even notable, though, but you've clearly demonstrated that and more. mftp dan ^oops 00:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

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, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I feel like I had something to fix with every sentence of his career.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Two references to primary sources where probably inappropriate, and at least two uncited statements. A couple places the article takes sources out of context or fail verification.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hyperpop is not my forte, but as far as I can seem to tell, this seems adequate. I've seen smaller pass.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No biases detected as far as I'm aware.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Nothing that'd threaten GA.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Yup.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Possibly feasible, but this same amount of work is what I usually see on much larger articles.

Lead

• "Initially presenting a hyperpop/digicore sound..." Initially? With what I'm reading down below, it sounds like he still is. I would also discourage you from using a slash to display these two genres; it seems like the source below is presenting the two as an 'or', so use that instead.
• June 2019 for DOA (EP) is only present in the lead and not substantiated in the body. Please confirm it's in the source and substantiate that below, or remove it from the lead. Likewise for COA and November 2020.
  • If I'm being really honest, the best way to do it is use shorter times such as years in the lead and more specific ones in the body (except for the most recent release). Right now, you have the opposite.
• I would encourage using pronouns more often instead of full names; in places where names are appropriate, use his surname Lopez instead. The only such instance of that in the lead is when you talk about COA.
• "Sources mostly describe Lopez's musical style as hyperpop." Didn't I just read that? Why did we repeat this?

Early life and career

• The Alternative Press references you use are both dead – please archive them. Took the liberty of doing this for you.
  • The first of these is missing the byline. For the second one, whenever you see the publication's name in their by-line, omit it from the Wikipedia reference. Finally, take the second one's example for how to link a publication: it's Alternative Press, not Alternative Press Magazine.
• The NME reference is also missing a byline (would encourage linking the publication as well)
• Please direct me where to look if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing a guitar from his grandfather in that Rolling Stone reference.
• "He started recording his own music and releasing it on sites such as SoundCloud under the name killeric. Eric released his debut EP DOA in 2019. Lopez would change his stage name to Ericdoa in mid-2019 and would release his debut mixtape, Public Target (2019)," all of this is unsourced. Well, maybe an attempt to cite Public Target was made, but Line of Best Fit bizarrely calls it Public Enemy (?).
• The Line of Best Fit supports that he signed to Interscope, but not precisely when he did. You need to change the text in the article or find a different reference for that sentence.
• All these references for the singles are good, but why are they missing from "Fool4Love" and "Lifeline"? The refs at the end of the sentence don't mention them.
• "Lopez has also frequently collaborated with Glaive," awkward tonal shift. This kind of verbiage would probably be more acceptable in the lead. When did Eric first start collaborating with Glaive? Flesh it out from there.
• Keeping the mention of Things with Wings to its release date and its headlining tour is sufficient.
• "in collaboration with Riot Games and Valorant." How about, "with Riot Games and their game Valorant."?
• On X date...on Y date...it gets repetitive, you know? Think you could vary the language slightly?
• "A clip from his 2-hour live stream..." huh? What live stream? This demands context.
• "As a response to" I think the word "Acknowledging" would work beautifully here instead of those four.
• "calling it "still massive", which became a meme of Ninja "dragging" the low taper fade meme. The meme is famous because its popularity didn't fade for over a year." So let me get this straight: you're basically telling me Eric's popularity and awareness grew because Ninja turned his silly line into a dead meme? Follow up with me on this one, I will have changes dependent on the answer.
  • Put a paragraph break at the end of this sentence, regardless.
• Delink Interscope here, no need to overlink.
• "He expressed on a podcast [which one?] how he was unhappy about the label forcing him to make an extended play (EP) with American musician Glaive." You mean Then I'll Be Happy, or was the label requesting a new one? I'm not hearing them say that in the short that's been provided, we don't have enough evidence to jump to that conclusion. This requires elaboration and maybe rewriting.
  • Is there any chance at all that you could find a secondary source to support that?
• "After his departure [from Interscope], Lopez went on to do a 24/7 livestream to make an EP." A what? Was this livestream's purpose to fund the EP's recording? How long did it actually run? The language is unclear.
  • Not only is that URL bare, but you should not be solely using Eric's X to cite that.
• Is Why Suffer for Us? a song or an EP? If the latter, as expected, it should be in italics.
• Linking Santa Anna to Sony Music is an easter egg, i.e. it doesn't mention the name at the targeted link; ideally you should delink it and specify it is a subsidiary of Sony.
  • It also isn't referenced.

Musical style

• "Lopez has stated that he is hesitant to place his music within a specific genre." No, that's not what the source says. The source itself writes that, but they didn't come from him. He did, however, criticize the varied artists diluting the original definition of hyperpop: “I mean, that word has been around for a long time, but it’s been used to describe 30 million other different types of things.”

Overall

If this article were a longer one, I'd have failed it by now. To be blunt, I shouldn't have to make a writing correction in every single sentence, and there's primary sources and an unaddressed inline maintenance template. But given its relatively short length, apparently without missing much critical, I'm willing to hold this. I see several GA failures in your recent history; don't make me hope in vain (if you can't commit, there's no shame in saying something). Show me what you can do. mftp dan ^oops 04:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC)