Talk:Lucid (Aṣa album)/GA3

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Versace1608 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the time this one has spent in the backlog, I'll take this one. Lazman321 (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

✗ Fail - See verdict. Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

The article is compliant with MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:LIST, and MOS:FICTION doesn't apply. Regarding MOS:LEAD and MOS:WTW, I do feel whatever issues I have regarding them are actually symptoms of bad writing per criterion 1a and close paraphrasing per criterion 2d. Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The list of references complies with relevant guidelines. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

While I don't recognize most of the sources, neither of the prior two reviewers seem to have issues with them, and I understand an obscure topic like this one might require more specialized sources. Take this a tentative ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

Spotchecks will be conducted here. Lazman321 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, see verdict. Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

I'll be using the spotchecks linked under 2c to also check for copyright violations. Lazman321 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

This article addresses the main aspects of any album: the background, release, composition, and reception of this album. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3b - Focused

None of the article felt like it was

4 - Neutral

Opinions regarding this album are clearly attributed, and the rest of the article seems to be presented in a relatively neutral tone. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Stable

With no edits since November and minimal discussion on the talk pages, this article passes this criterion by default. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

There is one image used in this article: the cover art. It's fair-use rationale is valid. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

The only image in this article is relevant. ✓ Pass Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7 - Verdict

@Versace1608: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to fail this review. I understand this has been worked for years now and there were two prior failed reviews, but there are key issues I discovered during my spotchecks that, in my opinion, must be addressed outside of review. My main issue is that this article has a significant number of close paraphrasing that I discovered during my spotchecks, during which I ultimately checked only the first 14 sources. Attempts at rephrasing information of sources are repeatedly superficial, leading to occasional source discrepencies and many instances of poor writing ("depicts the place where she was at the time of the album's release", "more personal and less political", "to tell a tale of the brokenhearted"). The reason I believe this should be addressed outside the review is because I worry that if you try to address them during the review, you might be hasty in addressing them to meet the deadline, leading to superficial changes that do not fix the problem of close paraphrasing and the resulting bad writing. I feel by ending the review right here, you have a chance at deeply examining the article and its sources in order to root out the close paraphrasing. Best of luck! Lazman321 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (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.