Talk:Get Enough (Ivy 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

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

as the opener → as the opener track

{{done}]

which was released in 1995 → no need to write this out; just put the release date in brackets

{{done}]

a folk rock and pop sound → word repetition for "sound" here

{{done}]

by music critics who enjoyed → comma preceding "who"

{{done}]

Infobox

I think there's something wrong with "Released"

{{done}]

Background and development

want of forming a band → wish of forming a band

{{done}]

reluctantly sang the demo → you can't really sing a demo, but interpret it

{{done}]

would eventually appear → would later eventually appear

Not done – "later" and "eventually" mean the same thing, so I think it would be redundant to add that. Carbrera (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The composition and written by → The composition was written by

{{done}]

while the latter two plus → while the latter two and

{{done}]

limited release consisted → limited release consisting

{{done}]

Critical reception

impressed by Durand's vocals → impressed by the singer's vocal delivery (word repetition)

{{done}]

comes off "Pure as dirt → comes off "pure as dirt

{{not done}] – the 'p' should be capitalized because that's how it appears in the article. Carbrera (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live appearances

In order to further promote → you can leave "further" out, as there was no other promotion

{{done}]

Track listings and formats

flawless ;)

Personnel

flawless ;)

Release history

Unlink formats and label

{{done}]

You don't need an extra column for refs

{{done}]

Other stuff

Copy-violation

9.9% is super!

Links

No problems here!

References

As far as I checked them, the references do cover the assertations made in this article (I can't verify the books, so I trust you with this!)
No dead links! Good job!

Outcome

On hold for 7 days! Good job! Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you so much for your review! It was very much appreciated. Happy holidays, Carbrera (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Gladly passing. Congrats and merry Christmas, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Important update: no wp:self published source in a GA

Per the discussion at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi's website is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. This article was promoted GA with this wp:non reliable source which is a blog. The reviewer was informed that this source should have not been incluede in the article. Woovee (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Woovee: I don't think either of us (including Cartoon network freak) were aware of this dispute prior to creating and reviewing this article. I've worked too hard on Wikipedia to ruin my reputation by using a source that isn't meant for use here. I'm glad you removed it; I have no problem with that. Cartoon network freak should not be blamed for this, as I'm sure he didn't know about this issue either. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Woovee: And this should be taken to Talk:Get Enough. This discussion has been archived and all future concerns should be addressed on the article's talk page, not here. Carbrera (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: @Woovee: Hi there! I did not know about this before,so it's fine if you just remove it without further discussion. I'm going to be more careful with GARs in the future. Best to both, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]