Talk:Jaydes/GA2

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: NP2026 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I will review this before, or on, 29 June. :) ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 23:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• His signing with 10K Projects should also be added somewhere in the body of the article (not just the lead, as the lead is a summary of what appears in the body of an article).
• I think “and started playing and writing music” is redundant given what is said immediately afterwards, mayB you could instead say “He grew up with a passion for music, and took piano lessons in elementary school and in his early teenage years.”
• You should add the year "Scam Likely" went viral, which I believe going by its article should be 2022? (And make sure this is cited of course!).
• You have “EP” above but later “extended play (EP)”, so switch those around (so that the word followed by its abbreviation comes first), and also shorten any subsequent mentions throughout the article to just EP.
• Could any more details or context be elaborated upon at “Jaydes explained that he was making music based on how he felt”?
• ”A critic from Pitchfork” – I think you could add his name here. Relatedly:
• Could “claiming it to be messy but working that way” be made a bit clearer?
• ”The review had also commented” – I think can be just “The review also commented”.
• ”production classical of [the style]” – unless this is a direct quotation (it is not marked as such), you can remove the square brackets.

Spotchecks

Passes on this front. For the spotcheck, I randomly select and verify some sources to make sure they are correct/accurate; I randomly chose and was able to verify refs 1, 6, 11, 14 and 19.

Sorry about the wait! I have (finally) left my comments above; feel free to respond to them whenever you have free time. I have placed this review on hold for now to allow you to make any changes. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 22:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: Thank you for the review!

1. I couldn't actually find any sources covering his signing to 10K, so I went ahead and removed it from the lead altogether. If I find any sources covering it later I'll add it back to the lead and put it in the body as well.
2. Done.
3. It looks like "Scam Likely" went viral soon after its release. With that in mind, should I still revise the sentence, or is it fine as is?
4. Done.
5. I agree this should be elaborated on, but I'm not sure exactly how. Do you have any suggestions?
6. Done.
7. See #5.
8. Done.
9. Done.

NP (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@NP2026: Nice work on the changes! The "Scam Likely" sentence is probably fine as is. As for 5, does it say how he felt? For 7, perhaps it could say something like "claiming the combination to be messy but saying that it still works" or similar? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 18:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@LunaEatsTuna: For 5, the direct quote in the article says: “I was just tryna’ make music based on how I feel,” he says of the EP, while the glow of FL Studio open on his desktop screen illuminates his massive mushroom of curly hair. “I really grew up making it.” He didn't really elaborate beyond that, so I think the current wording is fine.

For 7, I revised the sentence like this: Alphonse Pierre of Pitchfork stated that the album blends plugg with shoegaze and "emo balladry", calling the combination "messy" but adding that it "works more often than not". Does that work? NP (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that is fantastic! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Great! Is anything else needed for this article to pass? NP (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have given it a final look through and I am definitely satisfied with it! It is fairly short but covers everything that is available from RS, not to mention his career has thus far been pretty short compared to other super prolific and older artists. Nice work on the article; I am ready now to pass this for GA status, so congratulations! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:24, 14 July 2026 (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.