Talk:The Click (album)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Click (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Koopastar (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 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.	There are several instances of awkward phrasing or clunky wording, such as: AJR additionally wrote material for a hypothetical second album during the creative process of Living Room, citing an intention of different sound as their reason for not releasing the songs. — "intention of different sound" is worded weirdly, and I feel the whole sentence could be reorganized, say: During the creative process of Living Room, the band also composed material for a potential second album, but chose not to release it, aiming for a different sound. For their future music, the band decided to reverse this process and make the song's lyrics before an instrumental to accompany it. — As a rule of thumb for me, if a sentence ends with "it," it can often be reworded to make it more concise. In this case, it could be revised to: For future projects, the band chose to reverse their process, writing lyrics first before creating the accompanying instrumental. A majority of the album's music was written and produced in the band's living room in Chelsea, Manhattan, emphasizing that they weren't "inhibited by studio costs and other writers and producers," while also stating that it was occasionally overwhelming to manage aspects such as production and mixing without any professional capability. — This sentence is quite wordy and could be streamlined to improve readability. Maybe: Most of the album was written and produced in the band's Chelsea, Manhattan living room. They said that while this freed them from studio costs and outside influence, it was sometimes overwhelming to handle production and mixing without professional help. The song served as inspiration for the titling of The Click and overall basis of the album's theme, with the band creating "Weak" after. — There's inconsistent tense usage here, which occurs throughout the article. These are just a few examples from a brief skim, but these issues of readability and clunkiness persist throughout the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very well-structured, layout-wise. Paragraphs not too short but not too long, lead is of an appropriate size, few or no WP:WTW, and everything else looks good to me.
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.	There is a list of references at the bottom of the page, and they are laid out correctly.
	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).	While most of the article is attributed to a source, what stands out to me are the two tags. While quickfail criteria only say "large numbers" of these tags are needed to substantiate a quickfail, these still do not belong on an article, let alone a GA. Also, there is quite a large number of unreliable sources in this article. To name a few: PopCrush, iHeartRadio, CelebSecrets, Red Roll, Spectrum Pulse, and Shameless SF, and there may be others that I missed. There are only 5 unique sources considered unequivocally reliable by WP:RSP in this article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Sources I've checked provide some of the info they're referencing, but not all. For example, in the section Music videos, the prose says: "I'm Not Famous" followed by a video featuring Jack roaming the streets of New York City in a onesie, reinforcing the song's theme. The citation provided for this statement, idobi, does say that they "dance through the streets of NYC", but it does not say that Jack wears a onesie nor does it corroborate that this "reinforc[es] the song's theme." Following this sentence, the prose says A second music video was released later, featuring Legendary Shots and showcasing the band performing amidst various stunts. (which on its own is quite confusing; who or what is "Legendary Shots"?) but the interview never mentions "Legendary Shots." These are just a couple examples, and the article seems to have more.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pending
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main aspects are discussed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused throughout, yes. When it does diverge into specifics, there is a reason.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No peacock wording, no fluff. Neutral as can be with something like this.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No ongoing edit wars, no requested moves, and nothing of the sort. Very stable.
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.	All of this criterion is met. Nice job on getting your own picture!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Each image is discussed, and each image has an apt caption.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thank you for your efforts in improving this article—it has come a long way from previous revisions. However, after consideration, I believe the article does not yet meet the GA criteria, particularly in regard to criteria 1a (prose clarity), 2b (reliable sources), and 2c (no original research). Given the recurring issues with phrasing, source reliability, and verification of content, I am unfortunately going to have to WP:QF this nomination.

That said, the article shows great potential, and with further revisions addressing these areas, I believe it could reach GA status in the future. I encourage you to incorporate some of the suggestions I’ve provided and consider renominating at a later time, and particularly read guidance articles like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial or WP:OR. Best of luck with your future work on this article, and thank you again for your contributions. Best, Nub098765 (talk) 05:46, 15 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.