Talk:Wisecrack (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Voorts (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I will be taking this review I hope it passes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Mike Usinger gets mentioned in the critical reception section as Usinger without any context of who he is. Which makes it seem like a WP:UNDUE situation. He is mentioned in the previous paragraph, I think the second time labeling him as Mike Usinger would be better then just Usinger.

   I clarified that he's writing for The Georgia Straight. His name is in the immediately proceeding paragraph so I don't think it's necessary to repeat Mike. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   The critical reception section seems rather small. With so few reviews could you possibly get more out of them?

   I think I've extracted as much as I can without going into too much detail (e.g., one of the reviews goes through pretty much all of the album's tracks). voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (inline citations to reliable sources):

   Everything seems good however is their any alternatives to Bandcamp?

   The alternative is to cite the album liner notes, but since Bandcamp is an equally reliable source, I like to cite a source that people can access without purchasing or renting a physical copy of the album. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   "Blais released several singles and music videos leading up to the album's release, including" the first example cites the music video which is fine but given that their are three other examples consider cutting that one unless a secondary source can be found.

   Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   Everything is well sourced

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig flags nothing major just quotes

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:

   Are there any negative reviews out there?

   Not that I could find. I believe that this article cites all of the RSes that have discussed or reviewed the album. There were a few other reviews on websites that seemed to be blogs or lacked clear editorial standards. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Good no problems

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): Add some alt text to the image

   Added. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

7. Spotchecks

   Ref numbers from this revision [1]

   Ref 3: Okay Use of a primary source

   Ref 7: Good

   Ref 10: Good

8. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   @OlifanofmrTennant: I've addressed everything above. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

   Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

   Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 17:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)