Talk:The Woo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Woo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 00:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basic stuff and comments[edit]

  • Infobox is in great shape!
  • "a number of" → "several" (less wordy)
  • "out Roddy Ricch" → "out to Roddy Ricch"
  • "Roddy Ricch never was able catch up with Pop Smoke when he was alive. They would say hello sometimes while passing each other" does not sound Wikipedia-ish.
Removed
  • Add references at the end of each sentence containing a quote per WP:QUOTE.
  • Remove the comma after "from Pop Smoke".
  • "commented the" → "commented that the"
  • Add a serial comma after "Pop Smoke, 50 Cent".
  • "labelled" → "labeled" (American English)
  • "inspiration creating" → "inspiration for creating"
  • "also features" → "also feature" (American English)
  • Archive sources (either manually or with this tool).
  • The reference after "abilities" is missing a "|last5=" parameter.
  • Mark references from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Rolling Stone with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark references from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
Some Dude From North Carolina thanks so much for the review. I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Ultimate Boss: A recite is needed after "global superstardom" and there are Rolling Stone and Vulture references that need "|url-access=limited". After addressing these issues, ping me, and I'll pass the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina Done. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·