Talk:Question...?/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

Reviewer: UpdateWindows (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(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; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	well written, correct spelling/grammer, easy to understand	✓ Pass
(b) (MoS)	in compliance	✓ Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Uses plenty of verifiable references	✓ Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Uses reliable sources	✓ Pass
(c) (original research)	no	✓ Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	None noticed by me	✓ Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	addresses the song in a very good amount of detail	✓ Pass
(b) (focused)	Article remains focused on the song while also artfully mentioning related sources without going overly in-depth into them	✓ Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
very possible minor bias towards Swift in quoted sources selected, however seems to match overall opinion of the subject.	✓ Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Article is stable	✓ Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Has album cover, not really much else can be added in terms of images however, as it is just a song	✓ Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	yes	✓ Pass

Result

Result	Notes
✓ Pass	The article is a very nice in-depth summery of the Taylor Swift song Question...?

@UpdateWindows: thanks for reviewing this article! So is this an official pass? Ippantekina (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for deley, i was going to expand some of my notes then give it a pass, but my computer crashed. Will "pass" the article in a couple of minutes. UpdateWindows (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina forgot to tag sorry UpdateWindows (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

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.