Talk:Handstand (song)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Godtres (talk · contribs) 19:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking over this review from Talk:Handstand (song)/GA1 because it was not failed in the usual way, rather renominated. I'll see whether it meets the good article criteria, and I am happy for any of the previous reviewers to add to my comments to this review. Godtres (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is clear, and (just about) concise. The spelling and grammar are mostly correct. I've made a few edits to bring this up to standard, and I'm sure more work could be done. Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead: this is ok. Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout: this is compliant. Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Words to watch: "Language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative." I'm not sure this guideline has been followed. Also, I've removed a relative time phrase, "four days later". Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there are still some changes that could be made, but this is now ok. Godtres (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction: this article is compliant. Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists: this article is not compliant. The "charts" and "release history" sections are unnecessary and/or repeat material already covered in prose format. Godtres (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted the release history section (repeated fully in prose format, with little need for a table to summarise this - see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I think that the charts section does have some use to it. Godtres (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
There is a list of all references at the end etc.. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
All claims that could be reasonably challenged have citations. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources: I'm checking citation 21. The first usage is (just about) ok. The second is spot-on, as is the third. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional spot check of sources: I'm now checking citation 2. The first usage is fine. I think the second is good. The link is broken for the third, so I'll assume it was fine; the fourth, likewise. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
There does not appear to be any original research. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
There does not appear to be any plagiarism. Godtres (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article addresses the main aspects of the topic. Godtres (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The article is mostly focused on the topic, although there is some unnecessary detail, e.g. repetition of "charts" section earlier in the article, and e.g. in the line "Rap-Up suggested that...". Godtres (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed some of the unnecessary detail, so this is now compliant. Godtres (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article only includes reviews that like the song, which may be because there are only positive reviews. The reviews should be phrased in a more impartial way, such that it does not appear that Wikipedia is endorsing them as fact. This was a point raised in the last review. Godtres (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are apparently no negative reviews. Godtres (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
The article is stable. Godtres (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images have fair-use rationales. Godtres (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant and have suitable captions, where necessary.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'll place this on hold, to see whether there's any appetite from @Infsai: for improving the article to good article status. After 7 days, without improvement, I'll fail it. Godtres (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm surprised that someone decided to review this article, I thought that after the last one it was declined. Anyway, I brought back "Composition and recption" as one section, since there is no way in current form of the article to seperate them. I thought about it a lot, and it makes sense to me to pair them up, since there is so little valuable information about this song. I changed some wording, so the readers will know when something is an opinion, and when something is a fact. And sadly, I couldn't find any negative or mixed review of the song. I don't know why everyone is praising this mediocare track, but I can't do anything about it. :v

According to your review, "Charts" and "Release history" sections are redundant, however they serve a purpose of more image-like information for the reader. Every other song article has both of this sections if there's a need. Whenever the song charts somewhere, there's always a table made for that, while the "Release history" table is added when there are at least two different releases of such song, which happens here. So, there's no need to remove them.

Sorry to anwser this late, but recently I'm having only graveyard shifts, thus giving me little time to actually do something outside the work. infsai (talkie? UwU) 07:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. We'll compromise over the charts and release history section, and keep the former, but not the latter. I've made a few more changes to the article, which should hopefully bring it up to standard. Godtres (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll now pass this article. There's still some work that can be done (e.g. the composition section is not a full description of the song), but it meets the good article criteria. Godtres (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]