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.


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

Reviewer: Rusalkii (talk · contribs) 06:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I will make minor edits to the article as I go, please feel free to revert if they don't seem to be an improvement. In comments below, anything that isn't strictly relevant to the GAN criteria/won't prevent me from passing the article I'll preface with "nit".

Okay, placing on hold to address the below comments, but overall everything looks good and I don't expect any issues. Thanks for your work on the article!

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 (inline 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.:
    No edit wars or talk page issues in the past year.
  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):
    Would be good to get a short clip of the song itself, perhaps the chorus? But that's an aside.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead[edit]

Background and composition[edit]

Reception[edit]

  • Unfortunately, I couldn't find additional reviews beyond what's included in the section. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music video and promotion[edit]

Track listing, charts, certifications, release history[edit]

General[edit]

Source spotcheck[edit]

Looked over some sources as I was reading and everything looked okay, grabbing a couple at random now:

1. Gay Times Green tickY

3. Papelpop Green tickY

9. The Forty-Five Green tickY (for "eurodance" only in first use)

19. Hungarian charts Green tickY

24. tophit - I don't see anywhere on this page that this is the CIS chart.

32. Rolling Stone - I don't see "April 22" in this source; it was published on the 23rd and doesn't specify when the performance was. "During the performance, the singer, adorned in a black latex suit and gloves, was joined by her band and two dancers" feels like a rather close paraphrase, can the sentence structure be changed?

@Rusalkii, will you be returning to this review soon? Or are you awaiting further changes from the nominator before continuing? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the nominator to address all my comments not marked as nits. @Iaof2017 do you expect you'll get to this soon, or should I close the nomination and you can try again once you have more time? Rusalkii (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite close but I'm going to close this now; feel free to renominate and ping me for the review any time. Rusalkii (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.