Talk:Luck... or Something/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: Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs) 05:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 20:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my name is RTSthestardust and I will reviewing your nomination of Luck... or Something for GA-status. - RTSthestardust (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Right now @Camilasdandelions, there's two big things you will need to fix/add, and you shall be good to go. - RTSthestardust (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@RTSthestardust Thanks a lot for your review. Those have been addressed. Regards, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's all I need. Here's your GA. - RTSthestardust (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note

• I made very small additions including commas, years for releases, and being up-to-date (as the first tour ended and the second one began)

Additions/Revisions

• The audio sample for "Roommates" is too long based on it being nearly three minutes; cut it to at least 17 seconds to fulfill Wikipedia non-free audio policy (the 10% approach).

• Ok, here's something I want you to do to make the charts section look complete: Mention the chart appearances from Belgium, Canada (and Canadian International), Croatia, France, Hungary, Italy (and Physical Albums), Scotland, Spain, and Switzerland, also emphasizing ones that had the biggest chart placements internationally. Once completed with that, add the Canada certification fact (including what organization, the date, and certification) as the final sentence of the Charts section.
• Not required for GA, but after this part above is done, I want you to archive all of the remaining citations without archive links just in case to prevent link rot.

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.	Well-done; very little issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good use of detail
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.	Incredibly great structure; some citations may need an archive links though
	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).	No misses
	2c. it contains no original research.	Checked throughout.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 21.3%, which is overall very good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead, background, composition, promotion, critical reception, commercial performance, track list, and personnel are well-addressed; except the chart section may need finishing development
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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 50.4% of the whole authorship, which is considerably great; also 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.	There's one free and two non-free files, all carrying both proper sources; however, the audio sample may need to be shortened to 17 seconds to fulfill WP non-free audio policy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very good descriptions for the images; alt text is good too.
	7. Overall assessment.	Hold; two issues need to be fixed