Talk:God Level

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.

---

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

Nominator: Wackistan (talk · contribs) 22:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, I'm RTSthestardust, and it's amazing you finally nominated the article for GA-status. I'll give you some notes and a criteria whenever I'm done. RTSthestardust (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Congrats @Wackistan, you have passed the article! This GA sees sharks in the water. - RTSthestardust (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Recommendation

• Archive all sources to prevent link rot
• An image or two will help. I'll add them after passing this nomination.

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.	Very good
	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).	It contains no original research.; I also recommend archiving sources to prevent link rot.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 13.8%, which is great
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The song's lead, background, promotion, composition, critical reception, and personnel are well-detailed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very 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.	Your percentage takes nearly the whole authorship of the article. Very 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.	Only the non-free sample, which carries a proper source and rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Sample features a good caption.
	7. Overall assessment.