Talk:Little Arrows

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:Little Arrows/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: VirreFriberg (talk · contribs) 22:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThrettanJuni (talk · contribs) 06:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article as part of the June backlog drive. I've read the article and ran it on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I found no reason to quick fail this article, so kindly expect a full review on the next few days.

Also, I am a new GA reviewer, so I will be waiting on an experienced reviewer as per the backlog drive's guidelines to check my work. Your patience will be highly appreciated. Thanks! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See discussion below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See discussion below. Okay.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   See discussion below. Okay.

   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):

   See discussion below. Okay.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There are no signs of original research and content directly tracks the cited sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig tool shows no major issues on copyright violations and plagiarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The main aspects of the song are present and well-summarized.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The article stays on topic without introducing unnecessary trivia or excessive detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The article maintains an objective, balanced tone, incorporating both positive reviews and critical feedback.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There are no evidence of ongoing edit wars or instability upon reviewing the "View history" tab.

6. 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:

   Media items used have appropriate licensing or clear fair-use rationales for historical marketing images.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images add helpful context and include accurate captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass

   This is a well-structured article; however, I am placing the nomination on hold for now. The errors pointed out (see comments below) must be edited before it can be officially listed as a Good Article. Also, an experienced reviewer needs to check thoroughly and review my work before you may edit. Thanks for your patience! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni: same here, remember to change the talkpage banner which you could easily do if you use the GANReviewTool script. Vestrian24Bio 10:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio My sincerest apologies. I thought I still have to wait for a review from an experienced reviewer before I can change the parameter definitely. Thanks for the clarification! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @ThrettanJuni, thank you for reviewing the article! Apologies for a rather late response as I was away over the past week amidst midsummer celebrations. I revised the article pertaining to your comments below, but removed all references that used the AllMusic link as a source. VirreFriberg (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@VirreFriberg Thanks for the revisions! Kindly review my comments below which is indicated by the icon for cleanups. Cheers! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni Thanks for the ping! Fixed the two points remaining! VirreFriberg (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! Pinging @Vestrian24Bio for a review. Much appreciated! ThrettanJuni (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

Lead section

• ...and reached number one in Spain for seven weeks between March and April of 1969.

  Kindly specify that it charted in a radio station in Spain and not exactly in Spain's official chart. See rationale on my comment under the Charts section. Okay.

Background and recording

• Together, they formed The Family Dogg that year, introducing Hammond to songwriter Mike Hazlewood.

  I noticed that you used AllMusic as reference here ([2]). Under WP:ALLMUSIC, it is recommended to use more reliable sources on biographical details when available. You may use the same reference you used in reference [6] since it also mentions Hammond being introduced to Hazlewood. Okay.

• ...including the unreleased Ray Davies-composition "King Of The Whole Wide World" in March 1966.

  Use "of the" instead of "Of The". Okay.

• In 1968, he signed with the then-fledling record label MCA Records...

  There is a typographical error here, "fledgling" instead of "fledling".

  Also, kindly remedy the usage of a citation here (reference [5]), also pertaining to the same issue under WP:ALLMUSIC. Okay.

Release and commercial performance

• ...the single entered the Record Retailer chart on 27 August 1968 at a position of number 47, steadily climbing the chart until it peaked at number two on 15 October 1968...

  This sentence features the exact same citation ([17]) twice. Under WP:CITEDENSE, if everything in a sentence or paragraph deals with the "same, single subject from the same source", you may support it with single inline citation at the end of said sentence or paragraph. Thus, you may remove the mid-sentence citation after "number 47" and keep only the one at the end of the sentence. Okay.

• The title on reference [18] should be "Chart on" instead of "Charton". Okay.

• ...later "selling close to four million copies worldwide".

  See aforementioned comment on WP:ALLMUSIC (reference [5]). Okay.

Reception and covers

• Not all assessments of "Little Arrows" was positive...

  Kindly fix the subject-verb agreement error. It should read "were positive". Okay.

• ...an when released as a single...

  Kindly correct the typo "an when" to "and when". Not done. Okay.

Charts

• I noticed that the phrase "Peak position" is split across two separate lines in the source code using a hard return instead of keeping it on one line or using a proper line break tag. It is customary to use |"Peak<br />position" for cleanliness. Not done. Kindly remedy the Year-end charts subsection on both years. Okay.

• Also, on the Year-end chart performance for "Little Arrows" (1969) and Brendan O'Brien & the Dixies version subsections, the weekly performance tables uses |class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders", but the table only contains a single entry/row of data. If a table only has one row of data, adding the sort function is completely redundant. Kindly remove sortable from the source code for cleanliness. Okay.

• Finally, Los 40 Principales is considered a deprecated chart under WP:BADCHARTS with a rationale under WP:SINGLENETWORK since it is a "single network chart documenting playlist frequency on the same network". So, kindly remove the Karina version subsection. Okay.

Experienced reviewer comments

@ThrettanJuni and VirreFriberg:

• Add an appropriate ENGVAR template to the page.
• Add the {{Use dmy dates}} template as well.
• Add translated titles to refs 26, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52 & 56.
• Refs 23 & 58 show Category:CS1 maint: location missing publisher, fix it.
• Refs 39, 40 & 45 show Category:CS1 maint: url-status.
• Refs 27, 30, 33 & 41 show Category:CS1_maint: deprecated archival service, replace them.
• All images on the page are missing an alt text.
• Was a source spot-check conducted as part of the review..?

That's all I got here.. Vestrian24Bio 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Much thanks again, @Vestrian24Bio! Similar to Talk:Hyperlove/GA1, I conducted a thorough source spot-check on this end. Earwig's tool came back clean, and I went through each citation individually to manually verify the text against the references. Cheers! ThrettanJuni (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, @Vestrian24Bio. Edited the article based on these comments. VirreFriberg (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni: all else seem good..! Vestrian24Bio 08:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you so much @Vestrian24Bio! Is it appropriate to pass the article now? ThrettanJuni (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni yes Vestrian24Bio 03:50, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Passing this article now. ThrettanJuni (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2026 (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.