Talk:Sunlight (Spacey Jane album)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Marcostev8, I'm pausing here to give you a chance to respond to the source review (2b) before we wrap up on prose/comprehensiveness, since those might get tweaked during the source review. Let me know your responses - the article's in pretty good shape overall! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ganesha811, thanks for the feedback! As for my responses to 2b:

• I believe Pilerats to be a reliable source. It is a well-established online music publication founded in 2011 with a sizeable team that writes about new local releases, interviews and reviews. They also produce professional live music content. They have been an invaluable resource reading about emerging bands from Western Australia, particularly their early interviews with Spacey Jane. In many cases they provide the only solid information online about some indie musicians, by talking directly to the artists themselves.

• Cool, seems fine.

• Tone Deaf is a reliable source - they constantly post Aussie music news and original interviews with well-known bands with the Chats, San Cisco and the Buoys all having write-ups from the past week or so. A lot of their journalists also write for Rolling Stone Australia as both are under the parent company, The Brag.

• Ditto.

• I'm removing Indie Is Not a Genre from the Critical Reception section as I can't prove its reliability. However, am I able to keep that reference in discussion of the musical qualities of the album (2nd para of Composition)? I think the author Ben Malkin still provides an objective and valuable insight into Spacey Jane's production and influences, even if it's not a well established website.

• I think it'd be ok to keep it for that purpose, yes.

• I've replaced the deadlinked reference from the Northern Beaches Review with the same article published by Tasmania's The Examiner (same article, published under multiple mastheads).
• I've removed mention of "Booster Seat" being the sixth single for now, as I can't find a source that says what date it was made a single.

Thank you, keen for your response! Marcostev8 (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• All looking good, thanks for the changes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Marcostev8, just a couple more things to do (2a, 3a) and I've got to do a copyvio spot check, and then I think we should be all set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Ganesha811, I believe I've taken on board all feedback. In terms of the personnel credits, they are sourced from the liner notes (standard according to WP:PERSONNEL) – does this still need a citation? If not, all should be good. Thanks! Marcostev8 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There's a few WP:DUPLINKS - generally once in the lead and once in the body is enough, with reasonable exceptions. I recommend installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which will highlight them and making removing them easier. As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know and we can discuss. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Where are the personnel and their instrument/track credits sourced from? Issue discussed, pass.
	2b. 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).	What's the case for Pilerats being a reliable source? Tone Deaf appears ok on spec (they have an editorial policy and are part of a larger organization), but please confirm that they should be regarded as a reliable source. Indie Is Not A Genre appears to be a blog - can you make a case for them being a reliable source? #27 (Leeson) appears to be a deadlink, although the archive link pretty much works. Please replace with a live link or tag as a dead link. Also, what's the case for Northern Beaches Review as a reliable source? #28 (Spotify) doesn't have information about being sent to commercial radio, just a plain release date with no context. Better source needed. Generally well-cited to reliable sources! Just a few issues noted above. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up a few things, but they're all properly attributed quotes, so no problems. Hold for manual spot-check. 5 sources spot-checked, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The album appears to have been released into the teeth of the pandemic. Did that get any coverage anywhere in reliable sources worth mentioning? Coverage added, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Tone of reception section is accurate to reviews, both used in article and elsewhere. No neutrality issues. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues on talk, no edit-warring, not much since nominator finished work on it. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Album cover and song sample are both fair use and well-described with good rationales. Other image is CC2.0 and confirmed, no issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, good captions, no issues with illustration.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.