Talk:Afrikantis

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:Afrikantis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: CarbonLollipop (talk · contribs) 07:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey CarbonLollipop, I'll be review this within the coming days. I'm always fascinated by this guy's music so I think this will be interesting. Locust member (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Afrikantis is an album by American rapper Lil B - "Afrikantis is the third instrumental album by the American rapper Lil B"? per his discography page it shows this is third.  Done While Lil B would usually release hip hop mixtapes, he also experimented with instrumental albums, releasing Choices and Flowers and Tears 4 God in 2012. - could you include when he would usually release hip hop mixtapes? this sentence feels like some context is missing.  Done Rewrote some of the lead, let me know if that works which both featured lo-fi, ambient production - "which both featured lo-fi and ambient production"  Done a fully instrumental avant-garde and electro jazz album. - infobox includes "Jazz" also. however, most sources just say this is a jazz album. (HipHopDX, HotNewHipHop, and Hypebeast). so, I would change to "a fully instrumental jazz album influence by avant-garde and electro jazz." in both lead and Composition. just change infobox to "jazz"  Not done "electro jazz" and "avant-garde jazz" fall under the "jazz" umbrella, so it's not like the other sources are contradicting the statement. Not sure I agree with this argument per WP:DUE. It is the most common descriptor found in the articles based around this album. Electro jazz and avant-garde jazz should definitely be mentioned, but the majority of sources refer to this album as just jazz.  Done, fair felt it highlighted Lil B's weak production skills. - would change "highlight" to "exposed"  Not done "Exposed" implies that his weak production skills weren't known before, which isn't what the source is saying. That is true, I misinterpreted it.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	hip hop mixtapes and panpipe synthesizers cause MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues. would change to "mixtapes in the hip hop genre" and "contains synthesizers with panpipe sounds", respectively. Partly done Unlinked mixtapes. I think "synthesizers with panpipe sounds" is too wordy to be worth the SEAOFBLUE fix. Put all periods after the quotations per WP:INOROUT  Done Thanks for pointing this out, I misinterpreted this guideline. wikilink Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock  Done	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	All sources need archive links (only eight sources so this shouldn't take long). also, change the AllMusic and Hypebeast to "publisher" instead of website on their references so they are not italicized. Partly done I never knew about the publisher part, thanks! At the time of writing this, I have a job queued with IABot, so I'll have the archive links eventually. Since archive links aren't part of GA (or FA) criteria, you can pass this criterion.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources pass WP:A/S. Even though Hypebeast is not listed anywhere, it has seen a positive discussion from here	Pass
(c) (original research)	Since embarking on his solo career in 2008, Lil B frequently released hip hop mixtapes. - the AllMusic source does not really say this fully (unless I am missing it, if I am lemme know).  Done, I added a Hypebeast citation to reinforce that he would usually release hip hop mixtapes. The rest is supported by the AllMusic biography. it was unanimously criticized for its clashing and "cheap" production. - a bit of a broad claim. I would not say that it was "unanimously criticized" if a source does not explicitly say that. I would say "critics ultimately criticized its clashing and "cheap" production. also, put every source that support this claim right after the sentence since there is a quote in the sentence.  Done, changed "unanimously" to "mainly" in the lead, and to "widely" in Critical reception. Moved sources.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Copyvio highest of 23.1% per earwig, looks good.	Pass

Spot check

• [1] - a bit iffy, addressed above
• [2] Y
• [4] Y
• [6] Y
• [7] Y
3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	You could add that this release saw Lil B depart from hip-hop and go into a more jazz sound per this source in the first sentence of Composition.  Done, switched some sentences around and added it in the second sentence Add in that this was released on his own Basedworld records Partly done Added this to the infobox and "Background and release" section. I couldn't find sources that specifically say he owns the label. Fair, I also just added it to lead, but looks good now! Add in comments from Sputnikmusic in Critical reception.  Done Sorry I just noticed this. You can add in a Personnel section per Tidal. Alternatively, since Lil B is the only person who contributed to the album, you could add what exactly he did after "via Basedworld Records..." in Background and release. Partly done I added that he mixed and engineered the album to the Composition section, since that's where the fact he self-produced it is mentioned.	On hold
(b) (focused)	Focused, Google search provides nothing more than just the sources used in here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Written from a neutral POV, looks great.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
No other user has edited the article, looks good.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Album cover and audio sample have correct fair use licensing.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Album cover needs ALT text in case of any visually impaired readers.  Done	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

• I did some minor changes myself (just moving sources around to match text and made some minor changes to Composition, nothing big at all). I will put this review On hold for now until my comments are addressed. Good work on creating this article, I had lots of fun reading/reviewing this, CarbonLollipop!!

• @Locust member: Thanks for this review! I've done my best to address your concerns, let me know what you think. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 23:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice work! Just one more thing two more things left to address as I'm not sure I agree with your argument (and I just added one more that I forgot to include earlier). Once those are resolved I see this article as good to go. Locust member (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@Locust member: I've made some changes, let me know if you still see any issues. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 00:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks good to go now. Congrats on your first GA!! Locust member (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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.