Talk:Swaay

Requested move 4 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move as uncontroversial. Page history for the redirect shows that its previous usage had been related to this EP (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 12:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Swaay (EP) → Swaay – Already redirects here and nothing else called Swaay Unreal7 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swaay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230202617/http://hitlisten.nu/top2016.asp to http://hitlisten.nu/top2016.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/swaay-ep/id1050241373

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Nominator: Artmanha (talk · contribs) 06:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This will be my first review for the drive. Lazman321 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

Fail - See verdict. Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

List of references comply with relevant guidelines. Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

2c - No original research

Conducting spotchecks here. Lazman321 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Fail - See verdict. Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

Fail - See verdict. Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

3 - Broad in its coverage

5 - Stable

No ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one piece of media, the cover art, has a valid fair-use rationale. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

The one piece of media, the cover art, is patently relevant to the subject. Pass Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

I'm so sorry, but even though this has been in the backlog for so long, I'm going to have to quick-fail this review. Spot-checks identified issues regarding source-text integrity and plagiarism that are too extensive to address during a review. I also noticed writing issues throughout the article that are too extensive, often in the form of awkward and vague wording. Lazman321 (talk) 02:48, 7 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.