Talk:The Positions

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

Nominator: Marcostev8 (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 03:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing your nomination of The Positions for GA. This will take a bit - RTSthestardust (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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; no issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	High-quality prose
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.	All are done well. No issues here.
	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 issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 18%, which is good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The album's background, composition, release and promotion, reception, legacy, and tracklist/personnel/charts/certifications are all well-informative.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very tight and consistent; 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.	Author holds 77% of the article's authorship. Very 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.	Three files, of which two are non-free (album cover, audio sample) and one is free; all have proper sources and rationales
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All have meaningful descriptions
	7. Overall assessment.