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: a2515aafdf6f845c

Jump to content

Talk:Rest in Bass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 months ago by 7rucify in topic GA review

GA review

[edit]

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:Rest in Bass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Gdshordy (talk · contribs) 23:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: 7rucify (talk · contribs) 15:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply


Unfortunately, this article is not broad enough. A composition section (a standard in album articles) is not seen, despite the fact that each review that is used in the reception section can easily describe the sound of the album.

As well, it contains some minor issues:

  • The user-generated sources, X (Twitter) and Instagram.
  • The Southern hip-hop and metal genres in the infobox are unsourced.
  • Stylistic issues; for example, Pitchfork not being italicized and the album title Rest in Bass being inconsistently styled in quotation marks or in all caps.
  • Some song titles are inconsistently styled in all caps.
  • Duplicated wikilinks.
  • Almost all citations are missing archived URLs.
  • Earwig reports a possible violation, 44%.
  • The reissue album Encore is not broad enough to be separated into its own section within the article.

While all these minor issues could be sorted out, the article still wouldn't be broad enough. Overall, the article is far from meeting the criteria 3a. // 7rucify (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

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.