Talk:Getting Killed/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: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 06:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 05:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Cathodography! I'll be your reviewer for the GA nomination of Getting Killed. Checking through the article was quick as I saw no issues on the way. Here's my criteria... - RTSthestardust (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations @Cathodography! You have passed this article as a GA. Keep up the good work! - RTSthestardust (talk) 05:11, 8 January 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.	Checked through the article and there were no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
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.	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.	There's 32% and 30.1% similarities from two Paste Magazine sources respectively, but violation is unlikely as they are coded green.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The album's history, production, musical style, release, critical reception, and chart performances are all covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very solid, as it doesn't distract from the main topic.
	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.	Nominator ranks top on authorship, showing significant contributions. There were five edits in the past week (including that I removed a fact about the tour's Europe leg starting on March 3 that is now-delayed to the 7th), but were all grammar fixes; being contributive, the article is still 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.	There are two images, with the first being the non-free cover and the other being a Kenny Beats photo on Wikimedia Commons. However, the non-free cover didn't have a link, I replaced the general source of "Apple Music" with the actual link of the album. On the other side, the Kenny Beats photo already has a proper license and source.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Both images are relevant for use in the article and have great descriptions (for the album cover, it's the alt description)
	7. Overall assessment.

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.