Talk:Revamped/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Medxvo (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2025 (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: CatchMe (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"conceived as "rock versions" in the lead requires a source even if it's stated and sourced in prose, per WP:WHENNOTCITE and WP:LEADCITE. You can just paraphrase it to "reworked into rock-leaning production" or any similar wording
"national charts in" - "national charts of"
"consider re-recording" - you can wikilink "re-recording"
"The original version was written by her, Max Martin, Ali Payami, Alexander Kronlund, and Savan Kotecha" - why are we stating the writers of this song only?
Since almost all of the charts are called (Scottish Albums, French Albums, Spanish Albums, etc...), I would replace "Scottish Albums / UK Albums / Billboard 200" with "Scotland / the United Kingdom / the United States", that's also how it's written in the lead
"top 10 album" - "top-10 album"
The Metacritic score is 74 not 85 :d

Omg??? I think I adjusted the prose from another album article and put that number instead... CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "based on 6 reviews" is a case of MOS:NUMNOTES, I think it should be six ...?

I believe "Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently" applies here. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"well received from fans" - "well received by fans"
You can minimize the use of "also"— It can be removed from "It was also named a nostalgic ..." / can be removed or replaced with "additionally" at "A few critics also thought ..." / can be replaced with "similarly" at "Merrill also admired ..."
"were predominantly highlighted as standouts" can be attributed to Hopper, as in "Hopper highlighted the remixes of .... as standouts"

Added TLOBF source after this because said Skyscraper was one of the "two real improvements". Removed "predominantly", though. Let me know if that's ok. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4, 7, 19, and 20 require |url-status=live

I forget to do that when I add the url-access=limited... But "don't forget" you'd say, lol. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check from this version

1(d) - OK
1(g) - OK
2(e) - I think the reviewer praised Slash and Bert McCracken, and didn't mention Strauss. If that's the case, we can change "also admired the collaborations" to "similarly admired the collaborations on the album"
3(e) - OK
3(h) - OK
5(g) - OK
5(m) - OK
5(q) - OK
5(t) - OK
7(c) - OK
9(c) - OK
9(g) - OK
11 - OK
13(a) - OK
14(e) - OK
16 - doesn't confirm the announcement date I believe? You can probably add this source
18 - OK
21 - OK
24 - OK
29 - OK
33 - OK
36 - OK
37 - OK

That's all I guess. @CatchMe: I'll put this On hold for now, just some minor concerns before passing. I have a GAN for the A Place in This World article, I would appreciate your comments if you have time and interest! Medxvo (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another review, @Medxvo: I added some comments above. I will be glad to review another of your articles (if no one has done it) when I finish the one I'm reviewing right now. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm fine with your comments and justifications and everything looks good. I'll ✓ Pass the article now, congratulations!! Medxvo (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2025 (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.