Talk:The Tortured Poets Department/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joseph Buell (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

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 language of the article is comprehensive pleasure to read
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article complies well with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
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.	References are abundant, appropriate, and thorough.
	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).	Cited are a pantheon of reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research here: only reliably backed facts.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Original work is respected and used fairly.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Each topic is addressed concisely and completely.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No aspect is focused on or mentioned too much.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The provides multiple perspectives and displays no bias that could interfere with the statement of facts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Edits are frequent and essential.
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.	Images are attributed and used fairly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic and captioned well.
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent article entry! A good article.

Joseph Buell (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Joseph Buell[reply]

Comment:: Hi, @Ippantekina and @Joseph Buell. I mention both because I hope it is not inappropriate or uncomfortable to intervene here, but my message is for Buell: I see that you have approved the article as GA (something that, in my impression, is too early but that is fine), but you did not do the correct procedure to close the review. I would like to know if it is due to some forgetfulness or if it is due to something that I am not seeing here. Santi (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was closed, since opened by @AirshipJungleman29.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joseph_Buell. Joseph Buell (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then familiarize yourself with the criteria, because something told me there was something wrong here. From my perspective, for example, I don't think it fully meets the stability criterion because it is an album released less than a month ago, unless Ippantekina says why they nominated it despite how exaggeratedly new it is. Santi (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the ping! I nominated this article for GA chiefly to maintain the GT status of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Taylor Swift original studio albums before the grace period ends. I understand that an article for a 1 month old album might be unstable, but I believe it is currently comprehensive enough to steer clear of consistently changing edits. Judging from the edit history I believe it's reaching equilibrium now. Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Buell: Hi, how's the review going? I'm assuming this is (one of your) first GA review(s), so might you need assistance? Ippantekina (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollosito: @AirshipJungleman29: In case the reviewer is inactive in the coming days, how can a new GAN be started again? Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The steps at WP:GAN/I#N4a can be followed Ippantekina ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that closing this review as failed can be a good idea. Then, renominate and wait for a review Santi (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe ask for a second opinion? 48JCL (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollosito 48JCL (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: Perhaps. Did you ping me for being the 2nd reviewer? Santi (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah 48JCL (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]