Talk:The Ghost of You
 | The Ghost of You 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. | ||||||||||||
 | The Ghost of You is part of the May Death Never Stop You series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA review
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ghost of You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I will review this article. I believe I reviewed something else for you, so it's nice to see you again. I will have comments up within a week. -Riley1012 (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- You did! You were the reviewer for my first GA; it's great to be working with you again. Please take your time with your review. Leafy46 (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- Well done @Leafy46: I have no suggested changes and will go ahead and pass this article :). -Riley1012 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
1. Well-written
The prose is clear and concise. I only noticed two minor comma errors, which I fixed. I did not identify any WP:MOS issues.
2. Verifiable
No notes on the references layout. The article uses reliable sources. Earwig's does not indicate any obvious copyright issues. Spot check: 2, 11, 20, 25, 35, 49, and 59 - all support the information in the text without plagiarism.
3. Broad
The article addresses all key elements of the song without going into unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral
The article is neutral in its tone, presents multiple viewpoints, and properly attributes opinions.
5. Stable
I looked at the article's talk page and history to verify that there are no ongoing content disputes.
6. Illustrated
The only image is the cover art, which is properly tagged with its non-free use rationale. The audio file also has non-free use rationale and a suitable caption. Both are obviously relevant to the article.