Talk:This Stupid World/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.

---

GA Review: First assessment

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 23:30, 3 June 2023 (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, and grammar):

   There are minor grammar errors throughout. For example: "Live performance commitments for the band were also canceled as they made these recordings, leading them to record This Stupid World until mid-March 2020, when they went to following COVID-19 restrictions."; "An additional promotional performance at a Live On KEXP set for Seattle radio station KEXP." (incomplete sentence); "paired with 'reassuring vocals and... lighter tracks...'" (should be a space before the ellipses); "The tour did not feature opening acts" (should be present tense since the tour is ongoing). Please give the article another copyedit.

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

    Passed lead;  Passed layout;  Failed words to watch: MOS:SAID issues in the "Reception" section;  Not Applicable fiction;  Passed lists: tables look good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

    Passed quotes;  Passed statistics: chart data;  Passed published opinion;  Not Applicable likely to be challenged;  Not Applicable contentious material.  Not Applicable science articles. No unreliable sources per RSP.

   c. (OR):

   Per source check, there doesn't appear to be any synth.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   Technically this passes per WP:AS and WP:SS, but by my count, the "Reception" section cites 29 reviews or placements of the album on best of lists. Given that all of the reviews seem to be positive (but see my comment under 4), I think this can be pared down.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Have you searched for any prominent negative reviews?

   Yes. I have added every review I have found either into the article or with {{refideas}} on the talk page. See review aggregators like Album of the Year, AnyDecentMusic?, and Metacritic, which show basically universal positive reviews. I'd be happy to be directed to any mixed or negative ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Edit history looks good. Talk page is empty.

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):

   Checked copyrights and fair use rationale for infobox image.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Are there more recent photos of the band members that are usable? Photos from the tour to support the album would be particularly good.  Passed captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Discussion after first assessment

Please feel free to ask any questions or make comments here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Since we're coming up on 7 days, I wanted to check in on how edits to address the concerns under #1 are coming along. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

As you can tell, I've pushed back #1 concerns because I always end up hating that bit of copyediting (tho your concerns are correct: this is very much a written by committe-style document even tho it was written by one person). I still intend to complete this today/tomorrow to be in the one-week window. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Please give me a ping when you're done. Also, just FYI, since this is my first GAC review, I intend to ask a more experienced reviewer to review my review before I make a final determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Koavf; I see you made some edits yesterday. Are you done or do you need more time? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Still smoothing it over for a few hours. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts:, I think the language is more clear now and the MOS:SAID stuff is mostly smoothed over. Note that I still have a "speculated" as it's about a claim that is in the future, so that seems appropriate. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: I just did a quick copy edit. It looks good. I'm going to ask for a second opinion since this is my first GA review. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Merci/bedankt/grazie/obrigado/danke/gracias. I'm honored. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: RE the MOS:NUMERAL issue in your edit summary, I was going per MOS:NUMNOTES: Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32. So, ratings should be "eight out of ten" or "8 out of 10", but not "eight out of 10". (I realize this doesn't matter for GAC review though since that guideline doesn't apply.) The NBSPs were my error because they showed up as gray question mark boxes in the visual editor. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh boy. Thanks for the numnotes thing. Do you prefer "8 out of 10" or "eight out of ten"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

No preference on my end. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review: Preliminary final assessment

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 19:40, 11 June 2023 (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, and grammar):

   Looks good after copy edit.

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

   MOS:SAID issues fixed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

    Passed quotes;  Passed statistics: chart data;  Passed published opinion;  Not Applicable likely to be challenged;  Not Applicable contentious material.  Not Applicable science articles. No unreliable sources per RSP.

   c. (OR):

   Per source check, there doesn't appear to be any synth.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Question answered above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Edit history looks good. Talk page is empty.

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):

   Checked copyrights and fair use rationale for infobox image.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Photos are informative.  Passed captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Second opinion

Since this is my first GA review, I'm asking for a second opinion before passing this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been doing albums and music in general for almost 10 years, GAs for seven, and I may disagree with this nominator on several editing principles, bnt I think you (and Koavf) have done a great job. Probably better than I did. (I was aged 17 the first time I did mine.) I personally am not of the opinion that a single album article should have a table of its entire tour in it - in fact, I think that's quite silly - but I also recognize that I have no consensus or reference point to such an idea being circulated, and a GAN is not a good venue to argue about that. This critical reception is better than most of the ones I've written or reviewed. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm genuinely surprised that you like my writing, as the way that I end up making these articles is always piecemeal as they are published, so it ends up being a little disjointed and repetitive usually. I appreciate your time on this and all the work you do on Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback! voorts (talk/contributions) 04:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Second thought, the lead could be a little longer. Even on shorter, more relatively obscure efforts like this for example have a more rounded out overview of the article. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, Voorts, in the future, use level 3 headings and not level 2 within a GAN. The transclusion will not work properly on the article's talk page. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review: Final assessment (following second opinion)

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

voorts (talk/contributions) 04:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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.