Talk:Black Lake (song)/GA1

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.

---

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

Nominator: Isthmus55 (talk · contribs) 13:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alanna the Brave (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take on this review -- comments to come over the next few days! Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's been a while since I expanded this one; looking forward to this review! Isthmus55 (t • c) 00:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Isthmus55: Alrighty -- this nomination is looking really solid! All images are relevant and appropriately tagged/licensed, and the article is stable and broad in coverage -- while the critical discussion of "Black Lake" feels extremely/overly positive at times, this seems to be an honest reflection of overall critical reception of the song. A spot check of sources does not reveal any issues, and Earwig hasn't flagged any copy-vio problems (all similar lines of text are quotations and are properly formatted as such). Content is well cited. The writing is generally strong, but there are a few areas that could use tightening up:

• I'm noticing some awkward verb tenses used in the "Background" and "Release and Promotion" sections (as well as the first line of "Music Video"). Despite describing things that are fixed firmly in the past at this point, these sections describe how Björk "would begin" recording the song, and her 2021–23 Björk Orkestral tour "would include" the song (as if these things are still happening in the future). Unless it's important to locate an event at a different point in time from the main narrative, I recommend sticking with simple past tense (i.e., Björk recorded the song, her tour included the song).
• In "Background", the musicians Arca and The Haxan Cloak are first mentioned without any introduction. I suggest reorganizing that paragraph to explain these musicians' roles in the song first, and then describe their reactions/opinions regarding the song.
• In "Music Video" (Reception), one quote from Kristin Iversen says the song was "able to 'transport [her] to a head space that felt light years away'", but I don't think the inserted "[her]" make sense in this context, as a quotation is there to preserve the speaker's original voice (Kristin is talking about herself, so "me" is fine). I recommend reverting the word back to the original "me".
• While not technically required for GA, it's good practice to include alt text for all images. I suggest adding 1-2 concise lines of visual description for each image.

Let me know when you're ready for me to have another look. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: Alright, so I believe I've fixed most of these issues:

1. I changed all of the "would" sentences to simple past tense except for one in the first "Background" paragraph (that particular one flows better that way, IMO)

2. Fixed about as described

3. Fixed

4. Maybe it's just my computer, but after adding it, only the album cover at the start has the alt text show up for me. It should still have the standard wikitext for it to show up, so I'm unsure if it functions with a screen reader

This article should be good along those lines, though let me know if there's anything else that needs fixing. Isthmus55 (t • c) 00:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Isthmus55: Looks good. Alt text doesn't always show up for me on my computer either, but as long as the alt text is present I think it will work for screen readers. I've made a few small additional copy edits just for flow/clarity -- I'm happy to pass this nom as meeting the GA criteria now. Nice work on the article! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review (and especially the copyedits)! Isthmus55 (t • c) 19:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.