Talk:Fader Bergström

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kyle Peake in topic GA Review
Good articleFader Bergström has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2022Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fader Bergström/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

I will review this one today! --K. Peake 07:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead

edit
  • Infobox looks good!
    • Thanks.
  • Remove the best-known and best-loved songs part, as that is not sourced
    • Done.
  • Add a sentence ending the lead about the reception/legacy of the composition
    • Done.

Context

edit
  • Good
    • Thanks.

Song

edit

Music and verse form

edit
  • Add relevant text to the audio sample to justify usage
    • Added.
  • Pipe 3/4 time to Triple metre
    • Done.

Lyrics

edit

Reception

edit

^* Done.

  • Are you sure unbridled is an appropriate term here?
    • Said 'unrestrained' instead. Means the same thing.
  • Pipe street-girls to Prostitution
    • Done.
  • Add the release year of Glimmande nymf
    • Added.
  • Imgs look good!!
    • Thanks.

References

edit
  • Copyvio score looks quite good at 31.5%!
    • Noted.
  • Should ref 13 be cited in place of ref 8 since it includes p. 149?
    • Merged refs.
  • Remove or replace ref 16 per WP:RSPYT
    • Removed.

Sources

edit
edit
  • Good
    • Thanks.

Final comments and verdict

edit

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply