Talk:But Daddy I Love Him/GA1

GA Review

Passed. λ NegativeMP1 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 04:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This song is so good that it disappoints me that it didn't get released as a single. A music video for it would've killed. Anyways, enough about the song itself, it's time to see if I still remember how to review a GAN. Expect comments by the end of the week. λ NegativeMP1 06:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

I wasn't able to find any significant issues with the articles prose. I do recommend maybe explaining to an average reader what The Anthology is, but that's less of a prose quality issue and more of a nitpick. I might be able to find more of these if you specifically request it (since there is discussion about this articles FA potential), but for GA standards I believe the article is fine.

Image review

All of the images in the article seem to be relevant, and there's only one piece of non-free content in use here, which is the song excerpt. And while the rationale for the file page itself could be more detailed (and the rationale could possibly be described in the image caption itself), it supports the critical reception towards the song as well as the composition one. I think it's fine.

Source review

No inconsistencies in reference formatting, and all sources appear to be reliable.
You could probably group all of the citations at the end of "A multitude of critics picked "But Daddy I Love Him" as a standout from The Tortured Poets Department" with an EFN that reads "attributed to multiple sources", just to make the article look a bit cleaner, but that's up to you.

Spotcheck

I spotchecked certain uses of references 4, 8, 3, 11, 16, 30, 31, 33, 53. They all appear to verify the text they are associated with.

Final comments

This article is very well written and I don't think there's any issues relating to it that should it back from the GA standards. But as I said earlier, let me know if you (or anyone else) want to take this article to FA and I might chime in again with more specific comments if needed. But with that being said and done, I believe that this article fully meets the GA criteria, and I will passing it, good job. λ NegativeMP1 22:42, 1 December 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.