Talk:DJ E/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

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 00:11, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 05:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my name is RTSthestardust, and I will review your nomination of DJ E for GA-status. - RTSthestardust (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The article is interestingly written and also really good considering that only eight citations are used. Well-done! You've earned the GA! - RTSthestardust (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

GA Criteria Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All of them are well-structured; impressive considering that there's only eight citations.
	2b. 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).	Well placed
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 16.7%, which is impressive considering the handful amount of citations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The background, release, composition, critical reception, and track list/personnel are evenly well-covered
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very consistent, with no distracting issues spotted
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Your percentage takes up 96.9% of the whole authorship, considering you made this an article; also very stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Despite there just being the album cover, it carries a proper source and rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes; no description, considering that only the album cover is used. Despite this, an alt may be useful.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass