Talk:Chromatica/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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chromatica. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: User:VersaceSpace talk · 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Criteria:

1. Well written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. 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:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. 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:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review:

Infobox and lead

• should mention Ariana Grande's involvement in "Rain On Me" (second paragraph)

Background

• "lukewarm" should be changed to "mixed" (first paragraph)
• "celebrity" should be changed to "fame" (third paragraph)

Recording

• "Blamed" is a loaded word, use a different word which means the same without having the same weight such as "said" (first paragraph)
• Did Sophie's early demos not make the cut or did none of them make the cut at all? (second paragraph)

Title and artwork

Good

Music and lyrics

Good

Release

Good

Promotion

• "The singer's manager" should be "Gaga's manager" (first paragraph)
• "Lindsay Zoladz from The New York Times" should be "Lindsay Zoladz of The New York Times" (live performances and tour)
• "Commercially it had a number five peak position both in the US and the UK." should be "Commercially, it peaked at number five in both the US and the UK. (singles)
• "It debuted at number one both in the US and the UK." should be "It debuted at number one in both the US and the UK." (singles)

Critical reception

• "harshest" should be "critical" or any synonym of critical to avoid repetitiveness (third paragraph)
• Glamour is a non notable publication so it should not be listed in the year end list.
• "Chromatica was well received by music critics." should be "Chromatica received generally positive reviews from critics".

Commercial performance

Appears to be good

Track listing

Good

Personnel

Good

Charts

Good

Certs and sales

Good

Release and history

Good

Refs

These appear to be good but there are a lot of references so there is a chance I missed something. versacespace (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Verdict

I'm putting this article On hold until you fix the one item I listed on the reception section. Thank you for your patience. versacespace (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace:, thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 20:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

DAP389, if you've addressed all concerns then I do believe you've passed! Is there anything else I need to do? This is my first review. versacespacetalk to me 07:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VersaceSpace, in the talk page, the {{GA nominee}} must be replaced with another template. There are more instructions here for those not fully acclimated to the process. If you need more help, please feel free to let me know and I can ping a more experienced reviewer to complete the passing. Again, thank you for taking the time to review the article! DAP 💅 15:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

VersaceSpace and DAP389, I am commenting due to being an experienced reviewer and currently in the midst of reviewing Hot Pink (album) for the former of you two. You can see talk pages of recently passed GAs by me such as this one to view the article history template that can be added to pass a GA, or ones like this to see how to pass one without adding article history. Best of wishes; I just thought it would be good to show both sides for how to pass! --K. Peake 08:51, 21 February 2021 (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.