Talk:Forever Winter/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Locust member (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll be taking on this review. Nice work with all the Taylor Swift articles recently! I'll try to get this review done in one day since it's a short one (no promises) Locust member (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Locust member: Thanks for the kind words and for taking on the review!! I was planning to review one of your GANs soon since you have so many and they all seem to be in pretty good shape. No rush at all please take your time, happy holidays :) Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well written

Lead

Looks good! I was a bit skeptical of the use of "It was intended for," but I see other Taylor's Version good articles using the same wording so I'm fine with it.

Background and release

...including the masters of her albums — link "masters" to Master recordings instead
- Done, thanks for this

Production and composition

Looks good!

Critical reception

Would close off the Josh Kurp sentence as it is. Then start with "Billboard's Jason Lipshutz similarly commended..."
- Done
Reorder the sources used in the sentence of ranking Swift's vault tracks; they're out of order numerically and aren't in order of the authors mentioned (Willman's source is placed before Kurp's source) [20][19]
- I've replaced some of the sources before I saw that you had reviewed the article, and right now they seem in order numerically (I'm not really sure what happened lol)

Personnel

Looks good, follows WP:PERSONNEL

Charts

Looks good!

Factually accurate and verifiable

All sources connect to what they say, and all are considered reliable per past Wikipedia discussions. Huffpost is fine excluding politics and its article isn't written by a contributor. CNET from October 2020 to October 2022 was evaluated on a case by case basis, but its use in this article is minimal and is only used once for non-opinionated information. Looks great here!
- Thanks. I've replaced some of the sources with some better ones that explicitly confirm the information provided in the article (before seeing that you had reviewed the article). They are the refs 2, 7, and 8, if you want to take another look.

Broad in its coverage

Absolutely is.

Neutral point of view policy

It is, no bias that I can see and is written from the point of view as just reporting facts. Nicely done!

Stable

Yeah, no other editors since October.

Images

Looks good, suitable caption and contains appropriate copyright, makes sense for this article. The audio sample I believe is relevant, as it features the main aspects of the song that critics talked about.

Overall

Barely any comments about this article. It is a short and concise article that covers its main aspects and is broad. Let me know once you fixed my little critiques and I'll be happy to pass this on. Merry Christmas also, if you celebrate.

Thank you so much again, Locust member!! I've replied to your concerns above. I hope you didn't mind changing some of the sources and I really didn't notice that you had started your review so my apologies, I believe the sources now are better and further confirm their respective sentences. Hope you had a lovely day today and Merry Christmas ... :))) Medxvo (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I don't mind at all! Looks good, I will be happy to ✓ Pass this article now! Thank you, you as well! :D Locust member (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]