Talk:In the Darkest of Nights, Let the Birds Sing/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: SupremeLordBagel (talk · contribs) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 03:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! It's me again. I'm excited to be working with you again – this time as a part of the GA Review Circles! I'll get started on the process soon. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm doing a check for inline citations, and the article looks excellent so far! Also, there is clearly no edit warring so I'll check that off. I did a copy vio check and there are no copyright violations detected- so I'll check that off too. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I've taken so long to keep you updated. I have been busy. I'll try to review this ASAP. I must say, it is well-written. The tone is neutral, the sections are adequate length and keep on-topic. It's overall an interesting read! I don't think I knew anything about FtP except for "Pumped Up Kicks", so it's cool to hear about their writing process and inspiration. Anyways, time to do that source spot-check I said I'd do. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Improvements[edit]
- Album cover rationale: The non-free use rationale for the album cover could be improved. I'll go ahead and do it to show you an example. Next time use {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done - notice how little you need to type in this template! The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reception template I'm checking through the reviews, and it looks like only one ( The Daily Californian) provides a score (2/5). You should put this in a {{music ratings}} template. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sourcing: sources from the band are ok, per WP:SELFSOURCE, (see also WP:PRIMARY), so long as the article is not mostly based on these sources. 8/30 references are from insta/facebook/reddit, which is hardly "mostly", but you still need to be careful. On top of that, there are 2 YouTube videos cited. Not that this is a problem, I just need to double check on what the other sources say and if they are reliable too. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @SupremeLordBagel Apologies for the wait, I have been very busy and I hope this is of no inconvenience to you. I would like to say: the article looks excelent to me, but I am unsure whether it qualifies as a good article per the criteria. I am going to request a second opinion for feedback. Again, apologies for the wait and we'll see where this goes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer checklist[edit]
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Second opinion from IanTEB[edit]
(this is my first time delivering a second opinion so I apologize if anything is weird). Since the original reviewer hasn't given a specific issue to check for, I'll look over the article and give any comments I have.
Background and development
- I would try to paraphrase more in the first paragraph; I can give specific pointers if you would like
- "Of the split, Foster said" - I would change Foster to "frontman Mark Foster" Done
- I think the second paragraph is very good!
Release and promotion
- These sections should be placed after composition Done
- I would specify the exact release date within "The EP was released the following month" Done
- I would also specify that the Wiltern Theatre shows were in December Done
Composition and songs
- Link Julia Garner Done
- "when Isom Innis" - "when keyboardist Isom Innis" Done
- Link trip-hop Done
Critical reception
- The Daily Californian should be italicized in the Music ratings template Done
Lead and infobox
- The release sentence should be moved to right after the first sentence. Done
- Assuming that at least a few sources in the body use the abbreviation, citations aren't required for In the Darkest of Nights. If no secondary source uses it, I would remove it Done
- This lead should be expanded; there's no content about the title/artwork or critical reception, despite both having sections in the body
- The lead says that multiple songs revolve around Foster and his wife, but the body only mentions one such track
- "It produced three singles" is maybe a bit inaccurate since they were are released before the EP. Maybe "it was promoted with three singles" is better? Done
- Mark Pontius should be mentioned in the body
This is a very surface-level opinion, but if all is fixed I think the reviewer should be able to make a decision on the article. I would like to ask, though, was a spotcheck performed? If not, I would advise doing so; just checking around three sources per section is usually enough for GA. IanTEB (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)