Talk:Apple of Sodom (song)/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: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @MagicatthemovieS: I was going to review this tomorrow, but the article was such a breeze to review that there was no point in waiting. I've gone through the entire article, and it's well-written and accurate, and uses reliable sources as references throughout. Although there are two issues that need rectifying before passing:

• Reference #14 (Sputnikmusic) is a user-submitted review, which is considered a source to avoid at WP:Albums.
• The production credits are wrong, albeit the whole thing is confusing. The entire soundtrack was produced by Reznor, but the song itself was produced by Manson with Sean Beavan. Here's the artwork to verify. Also make sure to re-word that "produced by Trent Reznor" sentence in Composition and lyrical interpretation.

Aside from those two points, I'm satisfied that this meets the good article criteria, and will be happy to promote it once the two things above are sorted. Well done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Homeostasis07:, I fixed those problems. Thanks for the help!

Thanks MagicatthemovieS. If you don't mind, I'd like to make a few minor copy-edits to the article before promoting. Should only take a couple of minutes. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So I just finished the copy edit. Feel free to undo/rework anything you don't like. I also used a bot to archive all the references (might seem pointless now, but it will help with any good article reassessment in 5-10 years time). So now this stuff...

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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):

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):

7. Overall:

Congratulations Magic! If only all other reviews could be this easy. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2017 (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.