Talk:Fredy Clue/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

Nominator: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 8.3% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No major issues were found in the article. I've made a minor improvement to remove repetition of their stage name surname. See Special:Diff/1251156497.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED. Overall, the lede's length is okay, and it summarises the article, which has appropriate sections, and there are no biased words within it.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Most references are reliable.
    • I see that Ref 5 (Yle) also mentions their name, Fredy Samuel Lundh. I'm saying this because I'm unsure about the reliability of Ref 1 (hitta.se). Do any other reliable sources mention the year of their birth? Nevertheless, you should add the Yle citation to the first sentence in the Early life section.
  • Spotchecked Ref 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Add the permission for the infobox photograph from the original file.
  • Other images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Dugan Murphy: Overall, the article is in a good condition. There is not too much to fix but I'd still like clarification on the hitta.se reference. Once the issues get addressed, I'll promote the article. The review will be put on hold for a week. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Thank you for reviewing my nomination! I have removed the hitta.se reference, which necessitated rewording the first sentence a little bit. That's because no other reliable sources I can find refer to Clue's birth date, though one of them say how old they were when the article was published. I am not a VRT member, so I am not allowed to add a VRTS permission tag to this image. Given that the VRTS permission tag is on the source image and the two are connected, does that tag need to be added here? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting (Yes, the permission should be added even if it is only a cropped image). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 October 2024 (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.