Talk:Fifty Vinc/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: BritneyErotica (talk · contribs) 07:40, 16 August 2023 (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.	From the talk page and other context clues I assume that English may not be the major contributors first language. While this isn't an issue, there are significant issues with readability (including grammar and syntax) that requires copy editing. For example, you should not start a sentence with "Because".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	Of the references that are actually reliable and secondary (not links to Spotify, YouTube or Genius), it fails to be fully cited with the source's date and author (for example citation [3]). Most references seem to be unreliable (corroborated in the Talk page).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Much of the article is supported by primary sources, such as references to music pages that contain no critical insight and simply provide basic detail like the lyrics to a song.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The bulk of the article seems to be a glorified list of his releases, which I find unusual in the context of the article (It is not "Discography of Fifty Vinc").
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the previously mentioned glorified list of musical releases may be unnecessary, especially with the Singles table below it.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I have decided to quick fail this nomination as per WP:QF criterion 1 and WP:QF criterion 3. This includes the unresolved "pronunciation needed" tag, too few reliable references and that it is a long way from meeting a hybrid between it being well-written and broad in its coverage.

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.