GA Review

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

Nominator: Pollosito (talk · contribs) 22:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will crack on with this one right away! --K. Peake 07:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Background and critical reception

Commercial performance

Music video

Live performances and covers

Accolades

Credits and personnel

Charts

Weekly charts

Monthly charts

  • Good

Certifications

  • Good

Release history

  • Good

References

Final comments and verdict

  •  On hold until all of the issues are fixed; I'll be able to get back on it even if you are done later today! --K. Peake 08:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kyle Peake, one more thing, I hope not bother. Before pass or fail, I would like to ask if there is one interesting piece of information in this article that I can give for DYK, because from my perspective, I'm not sure or there really isn't any. It's to avoid screwing up just in case. Santi (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No tags for this post.