Talk:Love Sux/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- File:Avril Lavigne - Love Sux.png - Fair-use image, with a detailed and valid FUR. Meets all FU criteria
- File:Avril Lavigne performing at Caesars Windsor, 2022-05-12 01.jpg - Image has a valid CC-BY-SA license, and metadata supports that it was the author's own creation.
Prose review and comprehensiveness
[edit]Lede
[edit]- "I'm a Mess" and the deluxe edition - This isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Per MOS:INTRO, we should use summary style.
Composition and themes
[edit]- The critics have offered diverse genres. What have they offered to support their classifications?
- There is a great reliance on direct quotations in this section - from Lavigne, from critics, etc. Some of this should be rewritten in Wikipedia's voice, avoiding potential QUOTEFARM territory.
Promotion
[edit]- These subsections are all short, and the sub-subheaders could feasibly be removed without detriment to the article.
- How was reception of the tour? I don't mean quotes, but rather general public and critical engagement.
- I'd recommend making this into a "Release and promotion" section, with information like the release date (you have that she announced it up top, and you have it in the infobox, but the fact that it released on schedule isn't in the body), as well as the different editions of the album (the vinyl and deluxe editions, specifically).
Source review
[edit]- Earwig gives an 87% chance of a violation, which can be attributed to the extensive use of quotations. Reworking the text would help reduce that number.
- Some refs are incomplete: see, for example, Refs 4 and 62
- Please review references for title case formatting (compare, for example, Refs 29 and 30)
- Publications haven't been linked on first mention, or universally (see, for example, Refs 6 and 30)
- Metacritic reference doesn't support that this is her highest rated album (nothing is compared)
- Gigwise is the work, and should be in italics
- Have spotchecked Ref 32, 36, and the liner notes. All look good.
Conclusion
[edit]
On hold This needs a bit of work, especially given that the reliance on quotations leaves the prose choppy. Also, please note that I edited the article while reviewing. Please review to confirm no meanings have been changed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi The Sharpest Lives. I see that you've been active since this review, but made no indication that this review has been read or that the comments are being worked on. I'm going to hold it for another four days, and if there are still no responses, I will have to close this nomination as unsuccessful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can close it. Apologies for the wait, I've just been super busy. Hopefully somebody looks over your comments and gets the article to pass, but for now it won't be me. Thanks {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 20:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, The Sharpest Lives. If you nominate it again down the line, feel free to give me a shout. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can close it. Apologies for the wait, I've just been super busy. Hopefully somebody looks over your comments and gets the article to pass, but for now it won't be me. Thanks {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 20:42, 1 October 2024 (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.