Talk:Animal (Miike Snow song)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Animal (Miike Snow song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking on this review. I hope to have some feedback for you by tomorrow evening if not tonight. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Concerns

I honestly have very little to complain about. This article is well-written, verifiable, with a strong conformity to accepted standards outlined at WP:SONGS. I have no doubts this will be promoted to GA class very soon, just a few issues:

• Last sentence under Critical reception: Maybe it is not necessary to touch on a critic's view of the album as a whole, especially considering we have so many quotes already from other critic's. This is debatable, as a connection seems to be made with how the song is interpreted in a similar way to the album. I'd more just like to hear your input, but to be clear, keeping this quote will by no means get in the way of the GA promotion.

  I shortened it a bit. Pancake (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Music videos section: I see that you're citing MTV as a source for what happens in the music videos. The MTV however appears to just embed the Vevo video from YouTube. Perhaps we could utilize {{cite av media}} and cite the YouTube video itself. It is licensed, so per WP:ELNEVER I don't see an issue with this.

  I decided to remove the citations for what happens in the music video as they are not really needed as synopses do not need sources. Pancake (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The last three sentences of the Music videos section are not accompanied by an inline citation. We just need to duplicate the corresponding video reference used earlier in the section.

Those are the only issues I see, all very minor. Once addressed I will happily pass this nomination. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the citations. As far as the last three sentences, I'm sensing some OVERCITE and only cited the last sentence. DepressedPer (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Great work! I think featured article criteria (no need for references in plot summary) can certainly apply for good-article criteria :) I hereby am passing this nomination and promoting to good article status. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]