Talk:Please Me/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 11:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello MarioSoulTruthFan, I'll take up the review for this nomination and present it shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  MarioSoulTruthFan, I have completed the review and the article fulfills the GA criteria for the most part. Although in my opinion, this is a bit borderline primarily due to the first point in the comments below. However, other than this I could not locate any other issue with the article so I am going to promote it, good work in that regard. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• The article uses too many quotations, in particular to the point that it's bringing around 10-20% similarity with 10 of the references; see Earwig's copyvio detecor. In general, I would recommend toning down on the quotations from a prose perspective as well, and instead relying on summarisations.
• The refs in the charts make it appear congested and a bit harder to read. I would suggest creating a new column for the refs and adding them there instead.

Tayi Arajakate Regarding the first point I would like to address that, but you passed the article right away. I don't want to make major changes that weren't approved in the first place. On the second topic, I'm not sure what you mean? The refs on the tables are automatic. Thank you for the review. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

MarioSoulTruthFan, you can still make the changes, there is no restriction on major changes in good article and this wouldn't be per se very major. I'm not suggesting removing all or even most of them, just decreasing their numbers especially in the sections of composition and the first two sections of music video. Regarding the second point, it's more a suggestion that the references in the charts could be formatted in the way you have done with release history, as in a separate column. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is clear and concise but relies too much on quotations.	Neutral
(b) (MoS)	The article follows the manual of style.	Pass

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The article has inline citations for every line in the body.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citations are reliable for their use.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research was found.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No flagrant copyvio or plagiarism.	Neutral

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article provides broad coverage to all major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article remains on topic without any deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
The article is compliant with the policy on neutral point of view.	Pass

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
No recent edit warring, content disputes or major changes.	Pass

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The media used is tagged with their appropriate statuses and rationales.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Use and caption is adequate.	Pass