Talk:All Dogs Go to Heaven (EP)

All Dogs Go to Heaven (EP) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 9, 2024. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. CatchMe (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:All Dogs Go to Heaven (EP)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CatchMe (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to review this! I gained my first GA hours ago, so I'm kind of motivated to do my first GAN review. (Sorry if I make some mistakes, let me know) Expect comments soon :) CatchMe (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your first GA!! I'm fairly new to the whole GA process myself so we'll learn together :-) Thanks for taking this on and I'm honored to be your first review! Locust member (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I see you're on a good streak, I hope it continues that way. CatchMe (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2024 (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:
· · ·

An initial comment: The hatnote ({{For|the 1989 film|All Dogs Go to Heaven}}) is unnecessary, as the title is already disambiguated with "(EP)". See WP:NAMB.

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

In the lead, you should put "(EP)" next to "extended play" (based on other GAs or even FAs).

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...wanted to move away from hyperpop. - maybe you could change it to "wanted to move away from his previous hyperpop sound" for more context?

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Nick Mira, Whethan, and others. - change it to "Nick Mira, and Whethan." It says "including" before so there's no need to also say "others".

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Production was handled... sentence should be before the It was promoted with... one, to match the order of the sections.:Y Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...travelled to Los Angeles to record All Dogs Go to Heaven in a studio - add something like "his next EP" for context.

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that, but I was talking about the sentence in Background and recording; the lead already says that it is his second EP. Moved it myself. CatchMe (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link Interscope Records in Promotion and release.

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Records" from "Interscope Records" in the Release history table.

Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable

Copyvio says "Violation unlikely" with 18,7%. Although this already looks good, the similarities are mainly the titles, so it's even better.
All Dogs Go to Heaven was classified as hyperpop by Julia Gray of Pitchfork - She actually classifies the artist as hyperpop, not the EP.

Sorry about that.. I misread. I included the Vulture article that stated how Glaive is a leading force in the hyperpop genre. Let me know if that's good Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there is no other source for the release of "Bastard" than Spotify, so it's OK.
I did a spot-check in some references (15, 17, 19, 21, 22) and they verify the text connected to them.

Broad

The deluxe tracks (which are a lot) are not mentioned in Composition. You should mention and describe them if there are sources that supports it. With a quick search, I found this source that describes "Icarus", but I prefer to just mention them if there is no information to all of them (like "The deluxe edition also contains the tracks...)

I found sources on the description of "Lap #1", "Icarus" (the one you gave me), and "Prick", but not the other ones sadly. I added an extra sentence to the section. Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Looks great.

Stable

No edit wars, looks great.

Illustrated

There's two artworks with non-free use rationale. The use of non-free content should be minimal per WP:NFCCP, but I think the second image is appropriate since it's significantly different and the deluxe edition is addressed in the article.

Overall

This is a well-written and well-sourced short article, so I have few comments. I will put this On hold until some minor issues are resolved. CatchMe (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you! Thanks for the kind words Locust member (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made minor fixes that I missed and were easy to resolve, like consistency with punctuation and a missing category (sorry for not catching these before). I'm glad to work with you and to ✓ Pass the article! CatchMe (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.