Talk:Celestica (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: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 16:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Should be a quick review, however it all depends on my schoolwork. Good work on the article so far, though! :) ~ Tails Wx 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Great work on the article, Skyshifter! I have a few comments below:

Prose

• The song received remixes by Thurston Moore on June 2[19] and Bear in Heaven on June 9." – I feel like "The song was remixed by..." would be a better start. I also think that we should give a little context on who Thurston Moore and Bear in Heaven are...that's my preference, though.
  • "received remixes" is better because of the release dates; i.e. Moore didn't remix the song on June 2, it was just released then. Added context

• "In 2014, Pitchfork named it the 89th best track of the decade until then" – could there be a clarification for when "until then" was? It seems to also repeat later on too.
  • Done

• "Eric Torres wrote to Pitchfork" – does Torres work for Pitchfork, or did he just write to Pitchfork? Just a query.
  • Works for Pitchfork. I wrote it like that just to have some variation in how to introduce different writers.

• Another query: is the black image supposed to be the track cover? I can't seem to find it on the streaming services (it might be due in part of my school's web-blocking filters).
  • Yes, on streaming services the cover is a black square.

That's all I've got! ~ Tails Wx 04:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: done! Skyshiftertalk 11:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm confident to pass this review now. Feliciations on another GA! :) ~ Tails Wx 14:34, 29 August 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.