GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Footlessmouse ( talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I will review this over the next couple of days.
Footlessmouse (
talk)
04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I want to officially note the backlog of two previous GA nominations and two peer reviews all in the last 90 days. This review may take longer than usual as I will have to take those and progress into consideration. The article will ultimately be judged only by the criteria, however, in the state it will be in just before the review is closed out. Footlessmouse ( talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of previous reviews
|
---|
@ Kyle Peake: given your prior involvement with these reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments or critiques you may have for the current state of the article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Summary of pervious reviews within last 90 days. I will not sign each note in this section—it exists for the sole purpose of my review of previous editorial reviews. Please do not modify this section or any of its subsections, if anyone has a comment, please start a new section below. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination disputeOn 3 August 2020, there was a small dispute on whether User:Lazman321 should be allowed to nominate the article:
Issues raised:
GR1 and PR2GR1 was quick-failed by K. Peake, who also reviewed the article more thoroughly for PR2. PR2 includes a long list of problems needing addressing, each of which I will verify has been resolved or is not necessary.
GR2Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA2 was failed for unreliable sources, some of which I believe the reviewer was too quick to label, as a reliable source depends on the statement being sourced. Otherwise, editors made an attempt to fix the problem here prior re-nominating the page. |
Resolved 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
After each of these, please create a new line starting with one of **{{done}}, **{{not done}}, or **{{question}} and give an explanation if necessary and sign. I will have many many more comments and suggestions, but I will give you a chance to work on these in the meantime.
|
Resolved 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I am finished with critically reviewing the prose of the article. I see no major complaints outside of what I have listed above and what has already been resolved. I am now going over references in detail and will double check the previous PR and GR for extra points. Footlessmouse ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am done with my initial review, I have found many problems, and some were already addressed by the nominator in a timely manner. I have just found many more problems which I will give the nominator a chance to fix. In the meantime, I am officially asking for a second opinion for a few reasons. This is outside my area of editing expertise, so it would be great to have input from editors familiar with song articles, I am new to this process having just dove in this month, and the history of previous reviews and amount of problems raised. I am especially not familiar with reliability criteria for the various websites used to document the charts, though as they only document charts I presume they are good enough. Comments from independent editors are most welcome. If you have a comment, please leave under this section with a new fourth level heading (i.e. 4 equal signs before and after section title) Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the certifications table and I found some problems, the table is automatic in various cases. However, the nominator didn't take a look at that and decided to copy and post several link, with many of them not working properly, wrong artists and so on. I have fixed it myself. Regarding you concerns on the charts, the Brazilian one with the PDF seems not to be working properly, so either remove it or find a replacement. The rest is fine since the providers are the offical, see here for a list of them and reliable sources, some accessdates are missing in said table. I would ask to remove the Mega Top 50 as it is not listed on the preivous list I mentioned and it seems its data only considers a couple of radio stations. Tables are missing header, and the release history is missing the label. iTunes is publisher, not work. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kyle Peake: Do you have any comments before this GA is closed. I will go back over it one more time to make sure, but nom has fixed all issues I am aware of. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Lazman321: Thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. This article will need quite a bit of help before it can be tried for Featured Article status, as the article must obey ALL MOS guidelines and be "thorough". That being said, the GA guidelines are relatively lax and require only a few of the guidelines be followed. One note about the GA criteria that is important is that it does not have to be "thorough" but it must discuss to some extent just the major topics discussed in the sources. That is a relatively low bar to climb over. The article as it stands right now is only 13 kB of prose, which is very short for an article over such a popular topic. So there is definitely a lot of room for expansion and improvement. I would personally rewrite a few of the paragraphs, but taking that into account is against the GA review guidelines, which require only the article is clear and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. Due to this, I have determined that at this point in time, the GA requirements are met in this article. Great job on the article and congratulations on getting the GA pushed through. Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Footlessmouse ( talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I will review this over the next couple of days.
Footlessmouse (
talk)
04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I want to officially note the backlog of two previous GA nominations and two peer reviews all in the last 90 days. This review may take longer than usual as I will have to take those and progress into consideration. The article will ultimately be judged only by the criteria, however, in the state it will be in just before the review is closed out. Footlessmouse ( talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of previous reviews
|
---|
@ Kyle Peake: given your prior involvement with these reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments or critiques you may have for the current state of the article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Summary of pervious reviews within last 90 days. I will not sign each note in this section—it exists for the sole purpose of my review of previous editorial reviews. Please do not modify this section or any of its subsections, if anyone has a comment, please start a new section below. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination disputeOn 3 August 2020, there was a small dispute on whether User:Lazman321 should be allowed to nominate the article:
Issues raised:
GR1 and PR2GR1 was quick-failed by K. Peake, who also reviewed the article more thoroughly for PR2. PR2 includes a long list of problems needing addressing, each of which I will verify has been resolved or is not necessary.
GR2Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA2 was failed for unreliable sources, some of which I believe the reviewer was too quick to label, as a reliable source depends on the statement being sourced. Otherwise, editors made an attempt to fix the problem here prior re-nominating the page. |
Resolved 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
After each of these, please create a new line starting with one of **{{done}}, **{{not done}}, or **{{question}} and give an explanation if necessary and sign. I will have many many more comments and suggestions, but I will give you a chance to work on these in the meantime.
|
Resolved 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I am finished with critically reviewing the prose of the article. I see no major complaints outside of what I have listed above and what has already been resolved. I am now going over references in detail and will double check the previous PR and GR for extra points. Footlessmouse ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am done with my initial review, I have found many problems, and some were already addressed by the nominator in a timely manner. I have just found many more problems which I will give the nominator a chance to fix. In the meantime, I am officially asking for a second opinion for a few reasons. This is outside my area of editing expertise, so it would be great to have input from editors familiar with song articles, I am new to this process having just dove in this month, and the history of previous reviews and amount of problems raised. I am especially not familiar with reliability criteria for the various websites used to document the charts, though as they only document charts I presume they are good enough. Comments from independent editors are most welcome. If you have a comment, please leave under this section with a new fourth level heading (i.e. 4 equal signs before and after section title) Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the certifications table and I found some problems, the table is automatic in various cases. However, the nominator didn't take a look at that and decided to copy and post several link, with many of them not working properly, wrong artists and so on. I have fixed it myself. Regarding you concerns on the charts, the Brazilian one with the PDF seems not to be working properly, so either remove it or find a replacement. The rest is fine since the providers are the offical, see here for a list of them and reliable sources, some accessdates are missing in said table. I would ask to remove the Mega Top 50 as it is not listed on the preivous list I mentioned and it seems its data only considers a couple of radio stations. Tables are missing header, and the release history is missing the label. iTunes is publisher, not work. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kyle Peake: Do you have any comments before this GA is closed. I will go back over it one more time to make sure, but nom has fixed all issues I am aware of. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Lazman321: Thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. This article will need quite a bit of help before it can be tried for Featured Article status, as the article must obey ALL MOS guidelines and be "thorough". That being said, the GA guidelines are relatively lax and require only a few of the guidelines be followed. One note about the GA criteria that is important is that it does not have to be "thorough" but it must discuss to some extent just the major topics discussed in the sources. That is a relatively low bar to climb over. The article as it stands right now is only 13 kB of prose, which is very short for an article over such a popular topic. So there is definitely a lot of room for expansion and improvement. I would personally rewrite a few of the paragraphs, but taking that into account is against the GA review guidelines, which require only the article is clear and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. Due to this, I have determined that at this point in time, the GA requirements are met in this article. Great job on the article and congratulations on getting the GA pushed through. Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)