Talk:Pageant Material

Pageant Material is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by Camilasdandelions (✉️) at 23:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Nominator: Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs) 23:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Elephantranges (talk · contribs) 22:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'd be happy to take a look at this article. Elephantranges (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Camilasdandelions: Alright, here's my notes thus far on the article:

Lead and Background and inspiration section look good. I haven't completed the spotcheck yet but the citations here all look to be verifiable.
Recording and packaging: Also verified the sources here, though I think certain parts of this section are redundant/can be rewritten. Specifically, Musgraves is quoted as saying all the musicians played together in the same room, and then this is repeated in the very next sentence. This also happens with the mention of the album having been recorded live. I'd also say "historic" is a bit of a subjective qualifier, so it only really should be included within the actual quote from Musgraves talking about the studio.
Composition: Maybe there should be a little bit of elaboration on what is meant by "offering softer sounds"? Specifically, "softer sounds" in comparison to what else on the album.

How exactly does "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" apply to collaborators? Do you mean choice of collaborators?
I think the "songs" section could probably be expanded a bit more. I imagine a high-profile release like this probably has a large quantity of reviews with discussions of each track existing across them, although I could very well be wrong here. What is here so far looks very good.

In terms of prose, the Release and promotion, Commercial performance and Critical reception sections all look good. I still need to verify sources on these.

What's here so far looks good! Elephantranges (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Elephantranges Hi! Thank you for your review for this article. I'll address your comments soon, within a few days, so you can finish your spotchecks until then. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 16:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply