Talk:Windswept Adan/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 01:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article review circles/Circles#Circle #1, I will be reviewing this article. I look forward to doing so – things are already promising based on a cursory look at the prose in the lede, and I hope to have something more in-depth by the end of the day Tuesday. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thank you so much for taking this on - I look forward to your feedback! Joeyquism (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention: if you have any questions regarding the sources in Japanese, feel free to let me know and I will do my best to clarify. Joeyquism (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: Actually, rough machine translations of the Japanese-language sources I checked were able to verify the information that those sources were used to cite (more on that below), but I do appreciate the offer.

Prose: No concerns here. I did make a few minor MOS adjustments. The substantive prose on offer here is engaging, flows well, and shows no bias. Prose review passes.
Sources: I spot-checked 20 references for the purpose of this review (numbers from this revision): 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 18, 21, 28, 29, 34, 35, 42, 44, 47, 53, 60, 63, 64, 70, 74. Nineteen of those references check out swimmingly. I mentioned above that I used machine translation to verify the Japanese-language sources; while you and I both know that machine translation ain't perfect, the translations that were provided fortunately matched the passages that those sources were used to cite. No other concerns with verifiability nor source reliability... except for one minor hiccup. Reference 28 uses Mattox 2021 as one of the sources for calling the album psychedelic folk, but from my reading of that source, Mattox appears to be using that label in reference to a live performance from the summer before the album's release, instead of the album itself. Source review on hold.
Breadth: Most of the sections I would expect to see in a well-developed album article are present and reasonably flushed out, but the lack of information on the album cover is a glaring absence (see MOS:ALBUM). When reviewing the page history to check for the article's stability, I noticed that an artwork section had formerly been included; is there any particular reason why this section was removed? Furthermore, the Beats Per Minute source indicates that an alternative cover had been issued; is there any information that could be found regarding this? Breadth review on hold.
Stability: A check of the recent page history shows no edit warring nor any significant overhauls. Stability review passes.
Copyright: All green returns on Earwig, and I couldn't detect any issues on my own. Copyright review passes.
Media: The two works of non-free media are tagged with sufficient fair-use rationales and are low enough in resolution to not be inhibitive toward commerce. The other three images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons. All works of media contribute encyclopedia value to the article and are accompanied by alt text where applicable. Sourcing for each work checks out. Media review passes.

As noted above, adding information related to the album's cover art would go a long way towards achieving the breadth required for GA status. Otherwise, everything seems in ship shape, with the only slight concern being the aforementioned irregularity pertaining to reference 28. I'm going to put this on hold for now; I hope to be able to pass the article once my feedback has been addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thank you so much for the review! I've removed the Mattox citation from the psychedelic folk sentence, and re-added information about the album artwork under the "Development" section. I figured it wouldn't fare well in its own section, and the pictures were taken as the album was being developed, after all. However, if this isn't the correct place for that information, please let me know.

Regarding the supposed alternate cover: I did a reverse image search on it, and it seems that it's the cover for the single "Porcelain". Nothing really comes up when I search "ichiko aoba windswept adan album cover", "alternate cover", or related phrasings; the aforementioned reverse image search netted results from AOTY and RYM, which are, needless to say, not good sources. From what I can tell, Beats Per Minute is the only reliable and verifiable source to report on this cover.

If I've missed anything or would like me to do further pruning, please let me know and I'll get to it as soon as I can. Thank you again! (Also, this is something I've been looking to get to FAC sometime in the future. I'd like to know your thoughts on this, if you don't mind!) Joeyquism (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, the new section looks great! I do have one more piece of feedback. In §Songs, the audio sample on the right is in close vertical proximity to the poem on the left. While this looks fine on my laptop, there could potentially be issues with sandwiching on wider screens. I would recommend either moving the poem to the right, or moving the audio sample to the left. Other than that, this article looks good to go. As for FAC, while I would probably support (and will be passing the article as soon as the potential sandwiching issue is addressed), I don't think I'm the best person to ask. I have a few FLs, but (a) they're in a niche microtopic area, and (b) I don't have any FAs yet. I do have one GA, which I'm hoping to submit to FAC later this month. I would strongly recommend seeking out an FAC mentor and asking them to look the article over – my own mentor has been of great help to me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: This has been addressed now. Thank you so much! Joeyquism (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Joeyquism – great work! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

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 (reference section): b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.