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: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, ULPS! Happy to take this review, as this looks like an interesting article. Comments forthcoming either today or tomorrow. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Lead

Background

Composition and themes

Critical reception

No clue where I got that from, probably from some article I mixed it up with. Replaced with something else, let me know if the current version is fine. I'll also see about adding a sample when I get the time, but probably not right now (I've never actually uploaded an audio sample to Wikipedia, I'll have to see about how to do it). ULPS (talkcontribs) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Citation numbers from this revision.

For WYBC, I could've sworn I saw some page on their site saying they had some oversight, but guess not. Axed everything sourced directly to them, unfortunate. ULPS (talkcontribs) 03:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Nice work on this one, ULPS! Apart from my sourcing conern, all of my other comments should be pretty straightforward and low-effort tweaks. Feel free to reply to my comments in line (don't strike them out, please!), and let me know if you have any questions! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoSquirrel69: Got everything I think :) ULPS (talkcontribs) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, this is looking pretty good! A final optional comment: since § Composition and themes is unfortunately a lot shorter now, I would consider merging it with § Background. The prose should flow a little better that way, and it would have better optics than a somewhat stumpy three-sentence section. Also, if I'm being real nitpicky about it, a lot of the content in § Background (such as the unofficial releases on Tumblr and the bootleg vinyl) is not really "background" material, so maybe the section could be better titled "Composition and release" or something. Up to you to do as much or as little of that as you like, though.
Thanks for all your good work on this nomination; I'm pleased to  pass this as a good article, congratulations! Your 35 points in the WikiCup await, and almost certainly 200 more if you ever decide to bring this to FAC.
By the way, about the sample, I'm actually a musician off-wiki and have some experience uploading audio files to Wikipedia, so feel free to reach out if I can be of any help later on! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:00, 7 January 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.