Talk:How Long (Paula Toledo song)/GA1
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 |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 19:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
A lost song? Interesting... will be looking at this article within the next few days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to be passing this. It was a quick review to complete once I got going, which I attribute to a few things: (1) the small size of the article, (2) the fact that there are only 8 references, and (3) the fact that the article is in such great shape already.
- 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):
- The only suggestion I have here is that you might want to switch out
Wells found inspiration in
for something like "Wells perceived inspiration from" – the current wording seems to imply that Wells was the one who was inspired, whereas in reality he deduced that inspiration had been drawn by Toledo. This is the only reservation I have and it is too small to merit putting this nomination on hold. The prose, on the whole, is excellent.
- The only suggestion I have here is that you might want to switch out
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- 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):
- I checked every source because there are so few of them, and they all verify the information present in the article. Earwig isn't returning any possible copyvios, and I can't see any issues in that regard myself.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Ordinarily I would like to see a section dedicated to the song's reception, but my own quick search for reviews came up empty.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- No concerns here.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- There has been some editing activity in the last week or so, but much of it has been tweaks by the nominator, and I don't see any edit warring.
- 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):
- There is only one image, and it is non-free, but it has an appropriate fair-use rationale. You even gave it alt text, which as far as I'm concerned is going above and beyond for GAN.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Excellent work here, Skyshifter – this article was a short but pleasant read and I enjoyed reviewing it. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
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.