Talk:Ever Again/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: Changedforbetter (talk · contribs) 19:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 21:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, fellow user RTSthestardust here, and I will review your insanely delicate nomination of "Ever Again" for GA. - RTSthestardust (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Changedforbetter Article is great and impressive, but there's a few things I would want you to work on before I pass this nomination. - RTSthestardust (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@RTSthestardust Thank you for your quick (and easy) review! (Easy for me to respond to or address, anyway; probably my easiest one yet.) I've responded to each of your points below under "Notes" and "Revisions", and I'm waiting for the final verdict. Changedforbetter (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Great! Will pass your review. - RTSthestardust (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Notes

• I fixed some overlinking issues as well as "the" capitalizations when necessary.

Appreciated, thanks!--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Revisions

• Could you add the single's commercial success to the page?

Added "Commercial performance" section, under "Reception"--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Archive citations 47, 55, 70, 93, and 146-147.

Provided archive urls for all sources mentioned. There were some where the link was simply not availabe or able to be added to the Internet Archive website, so I used some alternative archiving websites where possible.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Add alt text for the single cover artwork.

Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:49, 9 September 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.	Prose is honestly great and spans a lot.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Well-detailed and consistent as a 93K article. Idk how a Swedish single manages to reach that high, maybe because I'm not a Robyn fan lol.
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.	Fixed; citation structure is well-done with archiving and linking, except there are several needing archives just in case to prevent link rot.
	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 inconsistencies; good extra detail w/ notes
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research is spotted
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The highest is 27%, which is good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fixed; the lead, background/release, music/lyrics, reception, music video, live performances, track listing, personnel, and charts sections are evenly well-covered, except that you may want to add info about the song's commercial success on its Reception section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Consistent with no distracting issues spotted
	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.	The highest percentage is 93.3%, placing you at the top of the authorship; also 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.	This article contains one non-free file and two free files, both containing proper sources and rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	Fixed; good descriptions for two free use images; make alt text for the single cover artwork.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass