Talk:Squabble Up

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

Nominator: ModlordD (talk · contribs) 04:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThrettanJuni (talk · contribs) 11:14, 1 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!

I will be the experienced reviewer to oversight the review process as part of the June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:34, 6 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:

   There are multiple issues regarding this.

   In the Background and promotion section, the text reads: "...adding a 15-second snippet of a then-untitled song... Due to the usage of the word, the song became subsequently known as 'Broccoli'." What word is this pertaining to? This wording might leave readers confused. Okay.

   In addition, the Music video section contains a sprawling, run-on sentence that completely torpedoes readability. This needs to be broken down into manageable sentences and categorized logically. While the Music video section has now been logically categorized, you may want to edit the sources as to avoid WP:CITEKILL. Since the section utilizes almost the same four to five references, you can just put the sources at the end of each paragraph so as not to violate WP:CONSECUTIVECITE, but still being mindful of WP:CITEKILL. Okay.

   Finally, there are basic grammar typos:

   - Background and promotion section: "He started out the video by adding a 15-second snippet... as he makes his way down a dark hallway." (Mix of past and present tense).

   - Background and promotion section: "...the song was played during an National Basketball Association (NBA) broadcast...", should be "a National Basketball Association (NBA) broadcast".

   - Music video section: "The set and cinematography pays homage" should be pay. Okay.

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

   The article generally complies with the Manual of Style guidelines.

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:

   Inline citations are formatted properly; however, some citations have issues:

   - Reference 2 writes "The first 20 seconds of the video are devoted to the teaser", but what was written in the Wikipedia article is "15 seconds".

   - Reference 14 does not mention most of what was written, except for the fact that the music video was directed by Calmatic.

   - Reference 15 is also misplaced. Nothing in the reference talked about the choreographed dance numbers. 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):

   The article relies on highly reliable music journalism sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Going back to the massive sentence in the Music video section, it must be ensured that, if possible, every "symbolism" and "easter egg" claimed is explicitly noted by the cited sources. Also, the Personnel section needs to be cited with reference. While the Personnel section is now cited, kindly change TIDAL to Tidal as per WP:MOSCAPS. Okay.

   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:

   For a Kendrick Lamar single that reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, a Critical reception section consisting of only two reviews is quite thin. To meet the "broadness" criterion, this section needs to reflect the broader critical consensus from a wider variety of critics, if possible. Okay.

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

   The article stays on topic and doesn't dive into unnecessary trivia.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   The article generally maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

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:

   The only image in the article, which is a screenshot of the music video, was properly tagged with its copyright status, and a non-free use rationale is valid and provided for non-free content, as provided in its summary.

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

   The image is relevant to the topic as it depicts a part of the music video, but the caption is too generic and needs to be descriptive, as per MOS:CAPCONTEXT. Okay.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: On hold

   The article has a strong foundation, but the prose issues in the Music video section, the missing context in the Background and promotion section, and the short Critical reception section prevent it from meeting the GA criteria for now.

   However, these are just my comments. I am still waiting for an experienced reviewer to check my work thoroughly. Cheers!

@ThrettanJuni:, you have done the GAN review process correctly so far. @ModlordD: you may address the reviewer's comments/concerns. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch thank you so much for going through my work! ThrettanJuni (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I believe I have made the edits you have requested. Please check them over ModlordD (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni: Pinging to make sure you've seen ModlordD's edits. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello @ModlordD! Thanks for editing the article. Kindly go over my comments indicated by the icon for cleanups. Cheers! ThrettanJuni (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThrettanJuni Believe I have made the changes you have requested ModlordD (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@ModlordD Looks good, thanks! I believe the article now passes all GA criteria.

Pinging @Alexeyevitch for a review. Cheers! ThrettanJuni (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I also think the article looks good now. ThrettanJuni can pass the review. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Much thanks for your input, @Alexeyevitch! I'm passing this article now. ThrettanJuni (talk) 02:02, 10 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.