GA Review
[edit]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 toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cherrell410 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I made the necessary changes as suggested.
- I couldn't find other reliable references for 137 and 138, as they are the original sources. kitb (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Initial comments: looks like a very well written article that the author(s) clearly have spent a lot of time on
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A few of the sources brought back high scores on the copyvio detector, but it was quotes from the band
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- Talks about each of the 20 songs, but keeps it clear, concise, and makes a point
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I am going to leave any comments about stuff needing fixing below:
- Lead, 2nd para, 1st sentence: it explains who they worked with but it didn't explain what they did together
- Lead, 4th para, last sentence: could you add that they announced the tour in support/promotion/to promote of the album
- Background: source needed for the picture
- Music and lyrics, 1st para: wikilink human psychology
- Music and lyrics, 2nd para: be consistent with putting the sources after the genre/idea or at the end of the sentence
- Songs: in this section on was stylized as "ON" where in the lead it is stylized as "On", same issue in release in promotion section
- Tour: According to the tour article, it was set to begin on April 11 in Seoul instead of the 25th in santa clara
- Track listing: source(s)
- Personnel: source(s)
- Sources 137, 138, 58, 68 should be replaced as they aren't reliable
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.