Talk:JRJRJR

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.

---

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

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 03:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 06:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this! nub :) 06:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

1a. prose

Overall excellent prose. I just have a few quibbles:

• "...an abrasive hip-hop beat..." — What does "abrasive" mean here? I presume it's musical jargon, but I think it could be clarified.
  • In this context I believe it just really means like "harsh" or "in your face". I think just saying "abrasive" works since that is what is reported in the source. Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• "...switching between trap beats and hyperpop sonics." — Similarly, what is a "sonic", or rather, a "hyperpop sonic"?
  • "Sonic" is a common term in music discourse, usually just meaning "denoting, relating to, or of the nature of sound or sound waves." (per google) Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• "...they imagined "in perfect quality" how it sounded in their head and made it the way they heard it in their mind." — I feel like there's at least a bit of redundancy here? I feel like the clause could be made much shorter by saying something like they realized the song in the way they imagined it.
  • I Changed it to "They composed the song to match the exact sound they imagined during its creation." is that good? Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• "It was also the only song from the album they completed for three months..." — Does this mean they created this song and did not complete another for three months? Why is this relevant for the clause that follows: "...they stated that since its creation, they knew the song would be the album's final track."?
  • I changed this part of the article a little bit, lemme know if its good. Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Much better, in my opinion. nub :) 06:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• "The song begins with a stuttered sample saying "J" that does not end." — Is the sample literally repeating the letter "J"? I feel like that's the correct interpretation but it feels jarring and I feel like you could explain it better. Also, does "that does not end" mean it continues through the song? Or that the sample itself does not finish (i.e., it is cut off before it can be completed)?
  • Yes, the sample from the first second of the song just simply says "J, J, J, J," and then it goes into the beat. I'm not really sure of a better way to word it, do you have any ideas? And I changed the other part to "it is cut off before it can be completed" Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think I've rectified it. nub :) 06:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Makes sense. nub :) 06:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

1b. formatting

• The lead section adequately summarizes the rest of the article.
• Paragraphs are well-developed.
• There is no excessive whitespace.
• Headings are used in line with other song articles.
• I see no "words to watch" which do not make sense in context.

Everything seems formatted well.

2a. list of references

The article contains a well-formatted list of references.

2b. reliability

All sources are reliable—primary or secondary.

2c. original research

To ensure that the article does not contain any original research, I will conduct a text-source integrity review of about 1/2 of the listed references in the article.

Spotcheck

• Reference 1: The source does not say that the album was released in October 2023. While, yes, it was published on October 19, 2023, the source never temporally defines Census Designated's release date (not even with a "new", "on Friday", etc.)
  • Fixed by adding a new source Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reference 2: You could gather that.
• Reference 3: Yep.
• Reference 4:
  • Ref 4a: Yup.
  • Ref 4b: Sure, but it should be clarified that it was Billboard that said this, not Jame Remover themselves.
  • Ref 4c: Yup.
  • Ref 4d: Mhm.
  • Ref 4e: Yep.
  • Ref 4f: Checks out.
• Reference 5: You could deduce that.
• Reference 6: Visually confirms that.
• Reference 7:
  • Ref 7a: Yup.
  • Ref 7b: Mhm.
  • Ref 7c: Yep.
• Reference 8:
  • Ref 8a: Checks out.
  • Ref 8b: Yep.
  • Ref 8c: Mhm.
• Reference 9: Corroborates the Chicago part.
• Reference 10:
  • Ref 10a: In the song credits.
  • Ref 10b: Yep.
• Reference 11:
  • Ref 11a: Yep.
  • Ref 11b: Mhm.
  • Ref 11c: Yup.
  • Ref 11d: Checks out.
  • Ref 11e: Yep.
• Reference 12:
  • Ref 12a: Yep.
  • Ref 12b: Mhm.
  • Ref 12c: True.
  • Ref 12d: You could gather that.
  • Ref 12e: Mhm.
  • Ref 12f: Checks out.
  • Ref 12g: Yup.
  • Ref 12h: Y
  • Ref 12i: Uh-huh.

Only a few quibbles.

2d: plagiarism

Earwig detects a 36.3% similarity with a Paste Magazine article—however, a violation is "unlikely" and most similarities are direct quotes or proper nouns. All good here.

3a: broadness

For a song by an obscure-ish artist, I don't see how this article could be any broader. Nothing from a Google search is entirely omitted.

3b: focus

The article has 1175 words, far too few to stray from focus. Every sentence relates to the subject and there are no tangents.

4: neutrality

The article is neutral throughout. The only opinions are attributed to specific critics or other people.

5: stability

In its six months of... life(?), this article has had 32 revisions. There are no ongoing (or even defused) edit wars.

6: illustrated

There are three pieces of media: the cover art of the song, a visual representation of the artist, and an excerpt from the song itself. It is as illustrated as such a small article could probably reasonably be.

6a: tagged media

Each piece of media is correctly tagged. However, for the audio excerpt, what does "The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website will not impact the commercial viability of the software or site." mean in the "Respect for commercial opportunities" mean? This isn't a screenshot. Also, the source isn't a software or a site. I suggest this be rectified.

• • Fixed. Locust member (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

6b: relevant media

Each piece of media is relevant in identifying the various cogs in the system of this subject: visually and auditorily defining the subject and defining its creator.

Verdict

Overall, this is a well-researched and well-presented article, and with a few tweaks, this is certainly up to GA level. Well done! I look forward to your response! nub :) 20:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Figured I should probably ping the nominator: @Locust member nub :) 20:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Left my comments above. Locust member (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I think I can comfortably say that this  Passes the Good Article Criteria! Very well done, and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! nub :) 06:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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.