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

Nominator: Leafy46 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PSA (talk · contribs) 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I can take this review. I recommend reviewing other noms in the GAN backlog. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for taking on this review! I'm definitely considering starting to do GA reviews, but I don't think I'm ready for that yet; maybe I'll take some on during the next newbie backlog drive :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA: Hey there! Not to rush you, but it's been a bit over a week since the last post here, and I was wondering if you had an ETA of sorts for when I could expect a completed review? Sorry if this is sounding a bit antsy, but this article was previously picked up by an editor who went inactive without completing their review, and thus I'm a little bit paranoid lol. Leafy46 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Leafy46. Sorry for the wait. My schoolwork became more burdensome this past week, so the only edits I could do were not super labor-intensive ones. Expect this review to wrap by the next weekend at the latest; if I have time this weekend, then we might end way earlier. I understand the apprehension with this review, so allow me to continue by doing the spotchecks. Prose review will follow. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 17:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm kinda the other way lol; my schoolwork this week is pretty light, but it's going to be a lot worse next week. Again though, do take your time! And thank you for the prompt follow-up. Leafy46 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46, it has been six days since you last responded. I am willing to give you seven more to address a significant chunk of the comments so far; if the page still is idle, I will have to close the nomination. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA: Sorry about that, I completely missed that there were comments made because I didn't receive a ping abt it (combined with the aforementioned schoolwork). I'll get right to them! Leafy46 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• So I'll get the easy stuff out of the way first. Spotchecks will follow. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stability. Most of the editing history consists of improvements from the nom, so everything's fine in that regard.
  • Audio and visual media use.
    • The use of valid cover artwork is always acceptable. However, please add a valid source for this cover art in the file page.
      • I did not upload this file, so I don't know where the cover art came from. Usually the record label is okay in my experience, though (given that the rationale is generated from Template:Non-free use rationale album cover — see something like this cover image from a featured article)
        • There have been instances where fan-made cover artwork has slipped through the cracks, so a verifiable link will help assuage that concern. Regarding "given that the rationale is generated from Template:Non-free use rationale album cover" - one override parameter there, "Source", actually allows you to provide a link to the source. File:Doja Cat - Streets (Remixes).png provides an example. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair enough, done. Leafy46 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025
  • (UTC)
    • The live performance image. The license is compatible; although these are not explicitly requested by the criteria, I do have some apprehensions. Do we have a better-quality image of any live performance for this song?
      • Unfortunately not. My Chemical Romance live performances are pretty notorious for being recorded on potatoes given how old they are, and I've definitely given it as good a look as I can across the internet.
        • I recommend either finding a good substitute or removing it. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I personally believe that it does a disservice to the article to remove the image, but I will do so as you insist given that, again, there isn't really a substitute available. Leafy46 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not every article needs an image (other than the infobox image) in the prose, nor do they need some sort of audio or video sample. There is no strict requirement in GANs that there must be some sort of audio or visual illustration present in the article. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 17:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a bit unsure about the use of the audio sample. Number one, we should not expect readers to be familiar with T. Rex and Status Quo's music. Without the context, we can't figure out why these comparisons are relevant. Second, lyrics are not covered under the NFUR criterion of "the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text." Usually, the lyrics can be conveyed by text alone. Can we find a better rationale for this sample?
      • Hm. I'll chew on this, given that I see your concern here, but it's not exactly a quick fix unlike some of the other things you've spotted here.
        • I'm just going to get rid of it. I really hate to do it given that (alongside the removal of the image above) this leaves the article's body completely unillustrated, but I don't think that I can change the rationale for this specific sample to fix the issue you've brought up. If anything, I'll add in an audio sample of the song's guitar solo later, but as of now I think this is a lost cause. Leafy46 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • References list. Technically, books count as sources. Consider changing "sources" to "citations"
    • This was not done. Any reason why? Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 17:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of sources.
    • The biography book doesn't raise any red flags for me. All of the online sources I see here are reliable for contemporary music topics.
    • The quotation "jauntily devilish vocal persona" is not cited. The same goes for "attacked without any regard for their safety", which is unattributed. "rebellious or comically dramatic" and "point out the tenacity of their generation" are also unattributed. Everything else is fine cited (will see later if these pass spotchecks).
      • "Jauntily devilish..." was a case of a missing citation, good catch! "Attacked without..." was attributed in the citations of the next sentence, which I think is acceptable, but I've shifted it over to make it more obvious. Both "Rebellious or..." and "Tenacity of..." are directly quoted in the Billboard citation at the end of their respective sentences, so I'm confused what you mean by that.
        • "Attribution" is different from adding a citation/reference. Quotations like "tenacity of" require attribution to whoever wrote it, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Is it a guaranteed fact that everyone who was making TikToks soundtracked to "Teenagers" was doing it for the exact purpose detailed in the cited reference? It reads as an opinion by Goldberg, the article's author; as such, their opinion needs attribution. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. I've removed the quotation from "Rebellious or..." altogether to avoid the issue, and added a bit about Goldberg to the other one to properly attribute the quote. Hopefully this should be fine? Leafy46 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotchecks. Ref numbers are from this version of the article. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 17:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, I will do spotchecks of the online sources. I will also spotcheck the single offline source used here; please email me the relevant pages for the citations I wish to verify.
    • (2) - Please email me p. 149. ?
    • (5) - ok Y
    • (9) - ok for both citations Y
    • (15) - ok for both citations Y
    • (17) - first citation is okay. However, it applies only on the sentence's first clause, so move this citation a little earlier. The current arrangement implies that both 16 and 17 support all facts in the sentence simultaneously, which is not the case. Second verifies the quotation, but 18 should be moved earlier in the sentence. For the third citation, the guitar riff and solo is not the point of praise. The sing-along nature is. N
    • (21) - both citations are ok Y
    • (28) - both citations are ok Y
    • (33) - ok Y
    • (40) - ok Y
    • (42) - Chart history pages verify only the peak positions, not the debut positions. N
    • (48) - ok Y
    • (54) - ok Y
    • (65) - ok Y
    • (77) - This verifies the Reading Festival set list; was the song also performed on the Leeds set? ?
    • (89) - ehhhh I may be pedantic here but I am unsure of this. "adopted by Generation Z" implies that an entire generation is a monolith that collectively agreed to make this one song a protest anthem, which is patently untrue. ?
    • (91) - "rebellious actions taken by their teenage children" is not verified. I think we should also use clearer wording here; "rebellious" can mean loads of things. N
    • (92) - citation is ok, but it doesn't verify the 1b Spotify streams. Move this citation earlier in the sentence. ?