Talk:Acabou Chorare

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acabou Chorare/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: AskeeaeWiki (talk · contribs) 05:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello there! How did reviewers force this album to stay in the backlog for nearly 10 months now? Not my place to speak, but I'm glad to be reviewing this article now, as part of my review spree in an effort to soften the current backlog. As a quick warning, I am not a person familiar with the Brazilian music scene, but I will try my hardest to give this article the review it deserves. My process will be reading the entire article from start to finish, then evaluating each of the 6 sections of the GA criteria. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 06:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

My review and comments

1. Is the article well-written?

Reading through the article was smooth; I could not identify any severe issues with the prose that violates 1a or 1b on the GA criteria, and each section complimented each other while generally remaining individual to each section. The only suggestion I would have is re-clarifying the "such influence" in the opening of the Recording and production section, but it does not warrant an on hold. The use of words to watch were supported rather than just being used blindly. I believe the article has passed sections 1a and 1b of the GA review.

2. The verifiability?

All references are cited inline and are listed in accordance with the layout style guideline, quickly passes 2a and 2b . There is no original research present in the article, everything is sourced, therefore it passes 2c. Although running the article through a copyvio detector flagged a 50% likely violation, the article in question (Amazon) copies Wikipedia, not the other way around. There are no potential copyvios present other than this false-positive, therefore it passes 2d. .

3. Coverage?

The main aspects of Acabou Chorare, such as its background, how it was developed, its composition, the reception it received, and how it impacted music, are covered in the article while maintaining a summary style. Therefore, the article has passed 3a and 3b of the GA review.

4. Is the article neutral?

From my own observations while reading the article, I never once had the thought there was bias with how the album was presented, all praise and mention of its influence were supported by a plethora of sources, so the article passes section 4.

5. Stability?

There is currently no sign of an edit war or content dispute, with only roughly 12 edits occurring to the article since its nomination, mostly clean up rather than complete rehauls of the article. Overall, passes section 5.

6. Use of media (if possible)?

The only media used is a photo of the craviola, which does not have any copyvios and serves a relevance to the article, demonstrating a photo of an instrument prominent in the album's music. Therefore, the article passes section 6.

In general, I am proud to say that the article has passed its good article nomination! I want to give you some time to acknowledge it before officially upgrading its status, however, if some time passes without a response, I will promote the article myself. Good work on the article :)

As a day has passed, I will now officially transition the article in GA status. Congratulations again :). 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)