Jump to content

Talk:Karma (Taylor Swift song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKarma (Taylor Swift song) 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.
Good topic starKarma (Taylor Swift song) is part of the Midnights series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 18, 2023Good article nomineeListed
May 19, 2024Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

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:Karma (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tantomile (talk · contribs) 02:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) to the point Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) no violations Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) several appropriate references Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) all citations function Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) none seen Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) explains subject well Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) offers context when needed, but not excessively Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    stable Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) non-free images are only used as needed Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass worthy of GA status

Discussion

[edit]
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.
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Reference

[edit]

Cwilsyn, the talk page is not closed, just that one review above. You can comment here in this section, or use the "Add topic" link at the top of any talk page to add a new section. Rjjiii (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, blushes I didn't remember what the tiny + was for. I'll probably come back for specific help in a few hours. Cwilsyn (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]