Talk:Wisecrack (album)

Wisecrack (album) 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.
Review: March 30, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Nominator: Voorts (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this review I hope it passes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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):
Mike Usinger gets mentioned in the critical reception section as Usinger without any context of who he is. Which makes it seem like a WP:UNDUE situation. He is mentioned in the previous paragraph, I think the second time labeling him as Mike Usinger would be better then just Usinger.
I clarified that he's writing for The Georgia Straight. His name is in the immediately proceeding paragraph so I don't think it's necessary to repeat Mike. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reception section seems rather small. With so few reviews could you possibly get more out of them?
I think I've extracted as much as I can without going into too much detail (e.g., one of the reviews goes through pretty much all of the album's tracks). voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):

b (inline citations to reliable sources):
Everything seems good however is their any alternatives to Bandcamp?
The alternative is to cite the album liner notes, but since Bandcamp is an equally reliable source, I like to cite a source that people can access without purchasing or renting a physical copy of the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Blais released several singles and music videos leading up to the album's release, including" the first example cites the music video which is fine but given that their are three other examples consider cutting that one unless a secondary source can be found.
Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

c (OR):
Everything is well sourced

d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Earwig flags nothing major just quotes
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):

b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Are there any negative reviews out there?
Not that I could find. I believe that this article cites all of the RSes that have discussed or reviewed the album. There were a few other reviews on websites that seemed to be blogs or lacked clear editorial standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Good no problems
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): Add some alt text to the image
Added. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
Ref numbers from this revision [1]

Ref 3: Okay Use of a primary source

Ref 7: Good

Ref 10: Good
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

@OlifanofmrTennant: I've addressed everything above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]