Talk:SZA/GA1

GA review

Passed. Tomobe03 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 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: 750h+ (talk · contribs) 11:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 09:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll start this review within a couple of days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks. 750 h+ 10:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: ? 750 h+ 03:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+, apologies for the delay. RL had me away from editing for few days, I only re-started editing yesterday. I expect to clear some backlogs today and start this review as well. Tomobe03 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, much thanks. 750 h+ 08:57, 24 February 2025 (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 (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): {{GAList/chec

k|y}} 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Source spot checks

I'll start with source spot checks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ref name "HOT97" (#10 at present): This reference uses the {{Cite web}} template for a YouTube video that is 27 minutes long. It is very difficult to confirm the reference because there is no information where in the video is the relevant information located. There is the {{Cite AV media}} template that should be used with YouTube videos and similar sources. Please include location information for all such works - otherwise it is simply impossible to confirm accuracy of the refs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do this later.
ref name "n839" (#20 at present) appears to be in order Y
ref name "l280" (#30 at present) appears to be in order Y
ref name "p205" (#40 at present) does not actually confirm multiple performances at the SXSW. The source specifies just that a show at the SXSW was planned.
- the reference states, "she will perform at several performance showcases at the SXSW Music Festival in Austin, Texas, this week." But I will add this one, which doesn't specify the Z promotion part but does the SXSW performances.
ref name "x264" (#50 at present) appears to be in order Y
ref name "p161" (#60 at present) is technically probably ok, but the wording "an unknown person took the hard drive containing the album's music" reads (at least to me) as if a random person stole the hard drive left unsupervised for a moment. If I had not looked at the source, I'd get a completely wrong idea.
ref name "m200" (#70 at present) appears to be in order Y
ref name "l992" (#80 at present) appears to be in order Y
ref name "g804" (#92 at present) appears to be in order Y

I'll resume spot checks tomorrow.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: all done, thanks 750 h+ 08:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ref #106 appears to be in order Y
ref #114 appears to be in order Y
ref #127 supports the claim about the collaboration, but it does not mention it being "highly anticipated". Is there a source for that?
- there was an instagram source for that, but i removed it so i'll probably remove the highly anticipated part too
ref #137 points to an incorrect article - different publication, different title etc. - probably some mix up.
- bit confused here, since it does point to the correct, unless the ref name changed
ref #144 appears to be in order Y
ref #152 does not support the sentence it is meant to back up. The relevant prose mentions 63 shows in 2023 and 2024, but the referenced source talks about 2023 alone and lists 19 shows. Also, the prose mentions shows in Europe and Oceania, but none are listed by the ref.
ref #159 appears to be in order Y
- fixed
ref #169 announces release of Lana in three days, it does not report that it actually happened then... I assume that ought to be acceptable, but if you have another source handy, I'd suggest switching
- fixed
ref #180 appears to be in order Y
ref #191 appears to be in order Y
ref #203 does not support the "whom she affectionally calls Granny" bit. Was the SOS contribution also spoken word or another form of "sampled voice"? At least for the Love Galore and Garden, it might be worth mentioning that the this refers to spoken word.
- i added the "Granny" part, also i've added the part about the sampled voice
ref #216 appears to be in order Y - there's another issue at this point, but I'll include it in the prose review next
ref #223 appears to be in order Y
ref #237 appears to be in order Y
ref #245 appears to be in order Y
ref #246 appears to be technically in order Y but "was in a relationship with a fashion designer for eleven years, being engaged for five" reads as if the name is accidentally omitted. The fact that the name is not made public by design should be mentioned to clear that up.
- done
While there are ample references in the preceding sections, none are listed in the Discography, Filmography, and Tours sections - there really should be some available so readers are not required to investigate the rest of the article for confirmation.
- references aren't ever listed in discography, filmography or tours sections
The first paragraph of the Awards and nominations is unreferenced.
- done this one
ref #250 appears to be in order Y
Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports no issues of concern Y
- @Tomobe03: all done, unless responded to. 750 h+ 13:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MOS

I have read the prose to the "Impact, public image, and views" section and it seems very comprehensive, I don't think anything is missing and no details are excessivelly elaborated. I'll go through the rest tomorrow, review the changes and post back.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found no issues in this department.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All images appear appropriate, appropriately captioned and licenced. My only qualm is that there appear to be two pics (infobox and at the top of the 2024–present: Lana and acting debut section) taken at 2024 Glastonbury - which is not a GA criterion problem, but maybe there is another photo that could increase variety instead of repetition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review of GA criteria and the changes/responses made to my remarks, I'm passing the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 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.