Talk:Lizzie Esau/GA1

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 01:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Review

Launchballer, Georgeykiwi I'll ping you again if I complete the review and if needs to be address. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) add her stage name On hold On hold
    (b) (MoS) All are passed on MOS:BLP Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) All references are not archived, please archive it using IABot. On hold On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) a red flag using X as sources, X are not reliable per WP:RSPX. Please find a secondary and reliable sources. Also, In Discography, Spotify are not reliable too. Please use Apple Music instead. Fail Fail
    (c) (original research) No WP:OR founded. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyvio founded, automatically passed. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) This is passed since there's no other off topic on the adticle. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) per (a) criteria. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    I don't see anything wrong on the grammar or spelling. Note: It might changes with notice if I spotted wrong Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Image in the infobox is passed Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Have an WP:ALTTEXT, so passed. Pass Pass

Result

Result Notes
On hold On hold Launchballer and Georgeykiwi, please addressed all my suggestions and cocnerns. Please ping me if done, and please reply only on Discussion section.

Discussion

@Royiswariii: I have replaced Twitter and run IABot on the article, although I fail to see the difference between Spotify and Apple Music.--Launchballer 14:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that your suggestion that her stage name be added to this article directly contravenes MOS:HYPOCORISM, although I see @Georgeykiwi: just added it to the article.--Launchballer 23:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna assume it doesn't really apply for musicians as basically every singer with a stage name has this change George (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, The ref 3 is not reliable per WP:RSPIG. This is my last suggestion and I can pass this article. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPIG cites WP:SOCIALMEDIA, which expressly allows that use.--Launchballer 02:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lizzie_Esau/GA1&oldid=1274760567"