Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: voorts (talk · contribs) 17:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 04:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this in the next few days. Feel free to trout me if I don't get around to this in a timely fashion. Stuff marked optional is not covered under the GA criteria, but I think they would be necessary for a potential FA.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's is happy and all quotes are attributed properly inline
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Ref spotcheck

• 2: Good
• 5: Good
• 15: Good
• 20: Good
• 24: Good

Concerns

• relying on her classical training to analyze its parts worded a bit awkwardly - is there any way you can rephrase that sentence?
  • Fixed.
• citing Sasami's songwriting and production who?
  • Fixed.
• wanted to build up its promotion the album's or Domino's?
  • I think it's clear from context that it's the album.
• evaluated together put "that" between those two words
  • That wouldn't make sense.
• Is "Personnel" the best name for that section? It is not immediately obvious what it is referring to for readers
  • Yes. See WP:PERSONNEL.

Conclusion

• I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.
  • With all of my concerns addressed, I will pass this nomination. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional:

• "the thing that makes it pop ... is that it makes the listener feel like a main character" two concerns per Wikipedia:Quotations - the ellipses should be enclosed in brackets ([...] instead of ....) to specify that the ellipses were not originally in the text; put "[emphasis in the original]" after "character" but before the quotation mark
  • The MOS says to only put ellipses in brackets if there are already ellipses in the original quote. See MOS:....
  • [emphasis in original] is not required per MOS:ITALQUOTE.
• "madness, obsession[,] and desire ... into big, bold pop songs" same ellipses concern as above
  • See above.

@Grumpylawnchair:: Thanks for the review. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]