Talk:Drukqs/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I plan to be reviewing this article soon, tomorrow or so (EDT). As part of the current GAN backlog drive, I will have an experienced reviewer check my review. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

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.	James has stated that the title is not related to drugs, and is "just a word [he] made up...I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it." - This read a bit confusingly to me - one part of the quote is used in third-person ("just a word [he] made up") and then the other read in first-person ("I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it"). Otherwise, the prose is sufficiently clear and well-written. Addressed.  Done lunaeclipse (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sufficiently summarizes the body, layout is proper, and no weasel-y language. Optionally: Some references could probably be trimmed from the lead A pronunciation of the album title would be helpful, but I don't know of any official pronunciation nor any single commonly-accepted pronunciation - I pronounce it like "/drʊkjuːs/", which seems most common to me
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.	Reflist is present
	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).	Checked all sources (except for 5, 18, 21, inaccessible), only issues were: Ref 14 is probably okay under WP:SELFSOURCE, but if possible a secondary source would be preferable There are no citations for the "Personnel" section (where was it derived from?) Cited liner notes for Personnel section.  Done lunaeclipse (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR violations found
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector raises no major issues (highest similarity is 33.3% from Keymag (ref 9))
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There's not much information about the album's release other than an imprecise release date in the lead, the label, and the fact that it's a double album; Exactly when in October 2001 was it released? In what format? How was it promoted? How did it sell? What's the story of the album artwork? Compare to other Aphex Twin albums. I was unable to find any promotional material for the album. Found nothing for the album artwork either.  In progress lunaeclipse (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Looks good, article is well-focused
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written fairly, including the reception section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding disputes here
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.	All images have copyright tags, and non-free images (the only particular one here being the album cover) are tagged appropriately
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm not sure if File:Aphex Twin, 2008.jpg is really useful as it's a generic photo that doesn't demonstrate much other than what James looks like on-set, but it's relevant enough so I don't think it impacts this review
	7. Overall assessment.	I will put this on hold for 7 days from now; some info is missing and other minor issues are present but other than that, it's looking good; nice work so far! TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)