Talk:Dangerous Woman/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) 10:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming soon. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment: This article should be quickly failed! It is nowhere to meet the GA criteria and also its current layout misses a lot of information about the album which should be in compliance with WP:MOSALBUM. Additionally, this is relatively a new album, so new informationf about scheduled singles, possible awards and certifications might come. — Tom^(T2ME) 10:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: You should clearly point out which part of the article fails WP:MOSALBUM or misses any information instead of completely objecting. Also, this album isn't new because it has been three months since the album was released. How can you explain G.U.Y. became a GA just one month after its official single release.--U990467 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to point out anything specifically. Just look out of an example good article album and you will see that this is nothing near it. It needs a LOT more work in order to be a good article nominee. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica:/ @U990467: I'm going to provide a review for this GAN as soon as possible, and if it would be the case, I will give the nominator some time to expand the article, if possible. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cartoon network freak. The problem with this article is that it misses a lot of sections. And judging by the inexperience and stubbornes of the nominator, I don't see this article getting better in the time of the nomination. I suggest as I earlier said, withdrawal, a complete re-work on it and then again nominating it after it's completed. I don't see a problem with you taking its second nomination after its renominated :). — Tom^(T2ME) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry but I have to agree with @Tomica: on this one. I'd argue that this album received even more coverage than Gwen Stefani's third studio album and check its respective article out. Carbrera (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please quick fail this and @U990467: please check other GA album articles to understand why Tomica and others are saying so. This article grossly fails to be a GA and currently I would make it a passable C-class probably. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAN review

@U990467: After a quick look over the article I see what the other users pointed out: there's not enough information about this article here, although its coverage on the internet is heavily by the fact that the artist is Queen Grande. For example, the commercial performance section could be expanded more, and info about the singles is very few. Also, I think you'll have to wait some time until the record gains all commercial attention (certifications...). PLEASE, don't be discouraged as I'm quick-failing this. If you need any help with fixing any kind of problem, please contact me, but as the article stands out now, this is unfortunately a quick fail () Best and good luck, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:30, 22 August 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.