GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Heya! Thanks for nominating this article for GA status! I'm looking forwards to doing my little part with the review! Vocem Virtutis ( talk) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
GA Review Template:
What I notice right off the bat when reviewing this, and something I'm sure you've already seen, is that this article was previously rated at GA status and was delisted. I've gone ahead and run through the article and taken care of hitting a few points of the review that look good to me, but a major part of this review will include my going through the previous review that delisted this article. I imagine that you've probably already tackled several of those complaints, but I'll obviously have to go through them in more detail. Still, the article was at GA status once, and I definitely think we can get it there again. Looking forwards to working with you!
After an initial comparison of the state of the article now versus when it was delisted, there has been clear and substantial improvement. I'm almost entirely satisfied with the solutions taken to issues that the GA2 review covered. That said, I suspect there might be just a couple slips that have entered into the article, so I'll cover those below.
Lead
Infobox
Background and Release
Music and Lyrics
Critical Reception
Accolades
Commercial Performance:
Live Performance:
Music Video
Charts
Certifications
Release History
I am passing this good article review on Taylor Swift's song "Sparks Fly". I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The nominator of the article has corrected the flaws in the article that resulted in the previous delisting, such as making the use of media within the article appropriate to MOS standards and properly citing parts of reviews that originally were out of context. The sources for the article have been checked, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. The article, as written now, is a vest improvement over the article that is was previously that resulted in its delisting. Vocem Virtutis ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis ( talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Heya! Thanks for nominating this article for GA status! I'm looking forwards to doing my little part with the review! Vocem Virtutis ( talk) 00:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
GA Review Template:
What I notice right off the bat when reviewing this, and something I'm sure you've already seen, is that this article was previously rated at GA status and was delisted. I've gone ahead and run through the article and taken care of hitting a few points of the review that look good to me, but a major part of this review will include my going through the previous review that delisted this article. I imagine that you've probably already tackled several of those complaints, but I'll obviously have to go through them in more detail. Still, the article was at GA status once, and I definitely think we can get it there again. Looking forwards to working with you!
After an initial comparison of the state of the article now versus when it was delisted, there has been clear and substantial improvement. I'm almost entirely satisfied with the solutions taken to issues that the GA2 review covered. That said, I suspect there might be just a couple slips that have entered into the article, so I'll cover those below.
Lead
Infobox
Background and Release
Music and Lyrics
Critical Reception
Accolades
Commercial Performance:
Live Performance:
Music Video
Charts
Certifications
Release History
I am passing this good article review on Taylor Swift's song "Sparks Fly". I believe it meets all six criteria necessary to be considered a good article. The article is well-written, stable, and neutral in point of view. The nominator of the article has corrected the flaws in the article that resulted in the previous delisting, such as making the use of media within the article appropriate to MOS standards and properly citing parts of reviews that originally were out of context. The sources for the article have been checked, and any changes to the article necessary for the sake of verifiability have been made. Finally, all illustrations in the review are relevant and used properly, with appropriate captions. The article, as written now, is a vest improvement over the article that is was previously that resulted in its delisting. Vocem Virtutis ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)