Talk:Crest (album)
Crest (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 24, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Crest (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 04:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm really not a fan of Bladee — or really anyone in Drain Gang for that matter — but I am interested in reviewing this article so I might as well give this a go for the first time. Bear with me here please! I'll complete the initial review within the week. Joeyquism (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose needs a decent amount of work. Just a few examples of things I would change here (perhaps some of this is WP:BLUDGEONING/WP:GACN but I assure you I am doing this in good faith!):
This is not an exhaustive list; I'll probably go over the article again once these points are corrected, but will likely just promote once everything in this initial review is revised and completed. In general, I would say the prose is just a little rough around the edges at most. The information is complete, but is not as clearly written as one would expect for a good article. Also, I would suggest doing some copyediting for the songs section; trim down the usage of quotes and paraphrase more (if possible – I understand that there are few reliable resources for this topic).
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Aside from the MOS:QUOTEPUNCT note that can be fixed quite easily, everything else seems to be in line with MoS. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Looks good; happy to see that the videos have been timestamped properly. If you have the time, I'd suggest archiving your links for the sake of preservation, but I'll check this off regardless. | |
2b. 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). | Sources appear to be reliable.
Source spot check
However, there are some instances of WP:OVERCITE for some non-contentious statements:
Revise these and you should be good. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Not seeing anything that would violate this. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio check comes back fine. That being said, there is a quote that, in my opinion, is almost playing with fire — the phrase "cliff-bound beach from Ingmar Bergman's fantasy epic The Seventh Seal" is used verbatim from the Rolling Stone source, which takes it to a 31.0% similarity score (though I'd reckon this is also because of the other quotes cited in the article). I would suggest using a different descriptor for this. Otherwise, quotes are attributed and used appropriately. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Looks focused and within scope to me. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Presents the background, release, song composition, and reception with little else. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Presents a fair and neutral description of events. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No conflict as far as I can see. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Looks great. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good. | |
7. Overall assessment. | @Skyshifter: For now, I'm putting this on hold. The content itself is really solid and well-sourced, but just a few things definitely need some polish. I can care of any minor adjustments if requested. If you have any questions or concerns (it is my first time reviewing, after all), feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article; as much as I dislike DG now I did actually enjoy this album when it came out, and it's always good to see somewhat underrepresented artists in the GANs! --Joeyquism (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
@Joeyquism: thanks for the review, everything has been addressed! Skyshiftertalk 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Skyshifter read through it, looks much better! Passing GA now. Joeyquism (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Music good articles
- GA-Class Album articles
- WikiProject Albums articles
- GA-Class Hip hop articles
- Low-importance Hip hop articles
- WikiProject Hip hop articles
- GA-Class Pop music articles
- Low-importance Pop music articles
- Pop music articles
- GA-Class Sweden articles
- Low-importance Sweden articles
- All WikiProject Sweden pages