Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Purple Rain (song)/1

Purple Rain (song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

In the course of reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Purple Rain (song), I observed a few factual errors (detailed here). The original reviewer endorsed the opening of GAR. I observed further issues of fact (detailed here and here). The editor responsible for the article has tried to remedy these issues but has not properly explained why there were substantial deviations from the sources. Additionally, based on the substantial quantity of sources, I am not completely convinced that this quite brief article sufficiently covers the topic to meet the GA criteria regarding comprehensiveness. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason there were verifiability problems with mainly one source is because when I started working on the article, there was a massive amount of unsourced content, specifically in the "Background and recording" section, that I had to fix; some sentences that I didn't fix for verifiability then had deviations from the source. That source was also one that Gommeh didn't include in the spotcheck, which he already explained to you.

Also, not sure how a 15-paragraph article is "quite brief", but that's beside the point: What concerns brought up on the talk page have not yet been addressed? You went through all the problems on the talk page and I promptly fixed them. I'm struggling to see why you felt it was necessary to bring this article to reassessment. NP (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that saying Gommeh endorsed a GAR is twisting his words, since all he said is "feel free to start GAR". That doesn't mean he endorsed it or found it necessary. NP (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

NP2026, you need to stand down you confrontational language. Please remember that these processes are for the sake of bettering the encyclopedia. I have no problem with you, but you have repeatedly used escalatory phrasing and made personalizing comments. Do not do that. Additionally, it would seem that your recent additions support the assessment that a 12- 15-paragraph article might not be long enough to be comprehensive. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as escalatory. I don't have a problem with you either, I'm just a bit irked because I've spent a lot of time on the article, and because you accused me of using LLM. Also, I added an American Songwriter source that should fix most—if not all—remaining verifiability issues you might have. As for comprehensiveness, I'm not sure what more you want from the article. NP (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)