Talk:Born Pink/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on for review, as part of Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon. Apologies that it has taken so long for a review to materialise. Per my usual review style, I'll leave section-by-section comments followed by a check against the GA criteria.

Comments

Background

"Blackpink had been working on a new comeback" A comeback usually implies a period of absence, hiatus or critical/commercial failure. What are they coming back from?
[11] Rolling Stone citation should credit its authors (Tomás Mier & Kat Bouza) and provide a date of publication (August 19, 2022). The url is also still alive, so its status should be tagged as such.
Spotcheck: [12] "making them the first female K-pop group in history to do so." This doesn't appear to be supported by the source.
Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
[16] As before, Tomás Mier should be credited as author.

Recording and development

Quote box should be aligned to the right.
[17] needs a language tag.
Spotcheck: [18][19] Verified. But as you're quoting from different articles here, citations [18] and [19] should be moved inline with the specific quotes that they're cited from. So the Harper's Bazaar citation should go after "over a long period of time".
Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
"conjured" Very fanciful word to use here. Consider a different word.
Spotcheck: [26] Can't find anything about "The Girls" or "Blackpink: The Game" in here.

Composition

Spotcheck: [28] Verified.
Spotcheck: [33] Verified, although it's "emotionally charged" not "emotional charged". Also Abbie Aitken should be credited in the citation as the author.
Spotcheck: [41][43] Verified in [43], but not in [41]. Also, all of "telling their haters and doubters to take a seat" should be in quotation marks, not just "to take a seat". Right now it reads like we're using the terms "haters" and "doubters" in wikivoice.
Spotcheck: [34][33] Can't find these quotes in either source.
Spotcheck: [29] Verified, although closely paraphrased.
No need to link to vintage, as that article is talking about wine.
There's some fanciful descriptors in this section. Give it another look over to make sure you're not dipping over into non-neutrality.

Promotion and release

Spotcheck: [54] Nothing in here about the MTV VMAs.
"All two singles" Sounds a bit funny. Replace with "Both singles".
Spotcheck: [58] Verified.
"where attendees had the opportunity to enjoy photographic moments selected by the members, buy exclusive Blackpink products directly in-store and receive an exclusive gift from Spotify and Blackpink." This reads like an advertisement... Either rewrite this or cut it.
"a reality show on YouTube" "reality show" has connotations I'm not sure this meets. Think "YouTube show" would be fine.
"and conclude" Should be "concluded".
Any source for the tour's conclusion date? It's over now.

Artwork and packaging

There's quite a lot of primary sources in this section. See if you can find any secondary sources to supplement it. I worry bits like how eco-friendly the album is can seem like puffery when it's coming straight from the publisher's press releases.

Critical reception

"called the album as" The "as" can be dropped.
Spotcheck: [34] Verified.
Spotcheck: [41] Verified.

Awards and nominations

Think this section could be integrated into the Critical reception section.

Commercial performance

The image of Destiny's Child is a weird choice. It makes sense in context, but it's a bit confusing when scrolling down through the article.
Spotcheck: [4] Verified for the first sentence, but I'm not sure where the second sentence is coming from.
Spotcheck: [113] Verified.

Track listing

No notes.

Personnel

No notes.

Charts

No notes.

Certifications and sales

No notes.

Release history

No notes.

Lead and infobox

"English-heavy sound" Reads a bit odd. I understand that the lyrics are English-heavy, not the sound?

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~Some spelling and grammar issues. Nothing that can't be easily fixed.~~

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Largely complies with the Manual of Style.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Some references are incomplete. Be sure to go over and make sure all details are filled out.

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):
~~Cases of sources appearing to be incorrectly placed, some in which quotes aren't cited inline.~~

C. It contains no original research:
Appears to be examples of novel interpretations or synthesis, where the text doesn't align with the source.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
~~Earwig flags a few cases of copying, outside of direct and attributed quotes.[1] These should be looked at and rewritten.~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Everything's covered thoroughly.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Very focused, with no real deviations.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
~~A couple cases of apparent non-neutral statements in Wikivoice.~~
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No major issues since nomination for GA. There have been some reversions, but nothing problematic.
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:
Album cover is valid fair use rationale, photos of band members are licensed under creative commons.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Destiny's Child image is a bit odd on first glance, but is relevant. Images are appropriately captioned and most have alt text.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Most of this article is very well-put together, but there are some key issues that are holding it back from passing GA right now. I think they're fixable, but the problems with some of the prose and cases of text not aligning with the sources need to be fixed before I can look at passing this. @Lililolol: Ping me when you feel you've addressed my comments and I'll be happy to give this another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst Hi, and sorry for the delayed response. I believe that I've addressed the concerns you mentioned. It's worth noting that all sentences are enclosed in quotation marks, although for some reason they might not show up when checked using the Copyvios tool. Lililolol (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About spelling and grammar, I used Languagetool.org to check for any spelling and grammar errors, but it didn't detect anything needing correction. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to point it out. Lililolol (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lililolol: Thanks for seeing to everything! I'm happy to pass this now. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]