Talk:Conventional Weapons/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RedShellMomentum (talk · contribs) 01:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Here are my minor concerns below:

• Refs 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 27 should use {{cite magazine}}.
• Author and date information are missing for ref 9.
• website=www.sputnikmusic.com → publisher=Sputnikmusic for ref 16. Also, add the missing author and date information.
• Author and date information are missing for ref 17.
• SPIN → Spin for ref 20.
• Date is missing for ref 27.
• Remove "│ Exclaim!" from the titles of refs 9 and 17.

• Same for "| Sputnikmusic" and ref 16.

• Archive all of the refs if possible. RedShellMomentum 02:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Ping just in case this got buried. RedShellMomentum 18:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I was busy last night when this got posted (could only use Wikipedia every once in a while on mobile). I'm working on the citations right now. λ NegativeMP1 18:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the review @RedShellMomentum:! I've addressed all of the above. λ NegativeMP1 19:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

 Pass now, thanks for all your work with MCR-related articles! RedShellMomentum 19:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

February Backlog! RedShellMomentum 01:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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.	I boldly copyedited the article myself since it would be silly of me to make you do it, so this passes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Passes.
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.	Passes.
	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).	Cite Unseen shows 12 generally reliable sources, 2 Rolling Stone sources, and a Sputnikmusic staff review. Passes.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited to its respective source. Passes.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Eawig shows 16.0% similarity, which is in the green mark, so this passes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Passes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article uses 100% neutral wording. Passes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Page history shows no recent edit wars. Passes.
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.	Album cover has a valid non-free use rationale, so this passes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Album cover is obviously relevant to the topic, so this passes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article looks good, but I have just one minor concern above. It shouldn't take long.

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.