Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a258c5d7e9f599fe

Jump to content

Talk:Beautiful Imperfection

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Opm581 in topic GA review

GA review

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

Nominator: Versace1608 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Opm581 (talk · contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Opm581, and I'll review this article. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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):
    The prose doesn't have any issues, and there aren't any spelling or grammatical mistakes. The article also complies with the relevant MoS guidelines. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 05:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  2. 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):
    @Versace1608: I noticed that some of the content is sourced to Spotify, MusicBrainz, and Apple Music. I think that those sources should be replaced with more reliable ones; would you be able to find different, better sources? Opm581 (talk | he/him) 08:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    There aren't other sources available to use. The Apple Music sources specifically mention the date the first two singles were released. If I remove the MusicBrainz source, then the entire release history section and majority of the info in the personnel section will have to be removed. I previously cited Discogs and someone else pointed out that it isn't reliable. However, they didn't complained about MusicBrainz.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'm very sorry for taking so long to finish this. Since there aren't any other sources available, I'll close the review as passed. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 10:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    @Versace1608: I think that the article needs sections about the album's commercial performance and certifications; would you be able to add those? Other than that, the major aspects are covered, and I don't think that there is any content that isn't focused. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 06:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hi Opm581, thank you for carrying out this GA review.I am not able to add those info because they aren't available online and aren't cited in any reliable sources. The album charted in a few european countries but I don't think it was certified gold, silver, or platinum in any of those territories. As for the commercial performance, there isn't any info online that mentions how long the album stayed on the charts. I don't think anything else can be done with respect to those two things.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, that makes sense. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Please let me know if you have additional issues with the article. If not, perhaps you could close this review and pass the article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I haven't finished evaluating the article's sources yet; when I'm finished evaluating them, I'll close the review or point out issues with the sourcing that have to be fixed. I should be able to finish checking the sources sometime within the next day or two. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 09:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I don't see any non-neutral or biased content in the article. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 09:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    There are no edit wars or content disputes. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  6. 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):
    The album cover is tagged as fair use and has a non-free use rationale. The cover is used appropriately. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: