Talk:New Lore

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Lore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AdobongPogi (talk · contribs) 09:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 00:20, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Guidelines above are followed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Refs are laid out correctly

   B. 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):

   All claims are backed by a source

   C. It contains no original research:

   User:Dragonhawk12/sandbox/New Lore Spot Check

   There are still some issues with the souring.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig kept flagging quotes, proper nouns, and other miscellaneous things I wouldn't consider plagiarism. No copyvio here.

3. 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):

   Article addresses the main aspects without going into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is neutral

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images present

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are still some issues in the article. If there is no update or progress within a week, I will fail the article. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this for the WP:DCWC. If you have any questions or I biff anything, tell me! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:22, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Ping @Dragonhawk12 thanks for reviewing this article. I appreciate your review again. I addressed your requested fixes, especially the source spot-check. You may check my revision history. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 06:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Ping me if there's anything I missed or issue. AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 06:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Good to know. I’ll look over your changes shortly Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 17:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The prose looks okay, but there are still some issues with the sourcing you missed. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Done. I'm not sure if there are any parts of the "Artistry" section that I should fix, but you may check :) AdobongPogi^{masarap 🍛} 12:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Everything looks fixed. I'll pass the article soon. Congrats! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 18:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Read-through

This is a read-through of the article to find any issues within the prose.

General

• The article interchanges the band's pronoun with "it" and "they" constantly. The band should only use one pronoun in the article. I suggest using "they", because they are a collection of people rather than a corporate entity or object.

Lead

• "The band known for blending synth-pop with visual art and poetry...": Wikilink "synth-pop" and delink "synth-pop" in the "Musical Style" section.
• "The band known for blending synth-pop with visual art and poetry, the band has described its music as being inspired by paintings, personal writing, and everyday experiences.": The sentence flows weirdly. It should be split into two sentences, like "The band is known for blending synth-pop with visual art and poetry. The band has described their music as being inspired by paintings, personal writing, and everyday experiences.
• "Their debut studio album grief cake (2025), received favorable coverage...": Remove coma after "(2025)".

History

• "The band originated in 2021 as No Lore, an alternative pop duo formed...": Wikilink "alternative pop" and delink "alternative pop" in the "Musical Style" section.
• "Later that year, New Lore released its debut studio album grief cake, which they has referred to the record...": → "Later that year, New Lore released its debut studio album grief cake, which they have referred to...", also remove "the record", as it's already implied they are referring to grief cake.

Musical Style

• "The band's second studio album good good juju, was released in 2026... Remove coma

Discography

• ""your playlist is a lie" (with Barbie Almalbis; 2026)": Delink "Barbie Almalbis", as she's already linked in the article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.