Talk:Happiness Begins/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 06:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll look the article over some time within the next few days. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This article still needs significant additions before it meets the good article criteria, and I'm closing the review at this time. While it's well-written overall, there are significant gaps in coverage and the article has information that does not correspond to the sources, as well as a few minor problems with the wording. The article can be re-nominated at GAN any time once the comments below are addressed. With that said, thank you for the work you've done on the article so far, and I expect it could be a GA in the near future. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 23:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well-written
 * The record was critically well received, who complimented it for the production values – Unclear what this is saying.
 * set to break their decade-long album drought, after not releasing any new material since 2013's LiVe – A decade prior was their last studio album. LiVe was only six years prior.
 * so their A&R at Republic Records – Unexplained jargon and abbreviations should be avoided per Make technical articles understandable
 * "Nick describes [album track] 'Hesitate' as Joe's love letter to Sophie, while 'I Believe' is a synth-heavy slow jam that alludes to his own whirlwind romance with Chopra". – Ideally, we should know who Sophie and Chopra are before we get to this point.
 * "Complimented" and "complimenting" are used as verbs a few times in a way that doesn't sound right.


 * Verifiable with no original research
 * The fact in the image caption is uncited. It's okay to have uncited captions if the same fact is cited somewhere else in the article, but it is not.
 * The reception section is mostly quotations. This can be a tricky one to get right, but too many quotations becomes an issue of using other people's words to write the article. The advice at WP:RECEPTION can help.

I checked the following sources to ensure they supported the content in the article and that they were not plagiarized. I didn't see any plagiarism, but there are some problems with text-source integrity:
 * Both Twitter sources – While we can use a tweet to verify that someone said something, it's better to find a source reporting on it. We can leave the one by Kevin if there isn't a better source available, but the "announcement" doesn't actually say anything and we're interpreting it for them, so that one should be swapped out.
 * Gottlieb, VideoStatic – Does this confirm that the video was released on March 1 or that it's the lead single?
 * Erlewine, AllMusic – Both uses are good. The reviews on AllMusic are reliable but the database is not, and this article only uses the review.
 * Stavropoulos, uDiscoverMusic – This doesn't support "357,000 were pure sales", and it says "third no. 1 album", not fourth.

Given this trend, it's likely that there are other instances where the article doesn't match the sources, and a thorough evaluation of the sourcing is necessary.


 * Broad in its coverage
 * The background section doesn't say anything about why they broke up, why they reunited, or anything about the actual lead up to the creation of the album.
 * The writing and recording section doesn't give the when, where, or how. I'd hope for at least a couple paragraphs about the actual creative process itself. I don't usually recommend using interviews as sources if it can be helped, but they're often really good for this specific type of coverage if any exist.
 * There's no section about the composition, lyrics, or meanings of the songs, which is usually the core aspect of an article about an album.
 * The release and promotion only covers the promotion, not the release.
 * There should be some coverage of the aftermath, how this affected the brothers' careers, and where they went from here.

Note that while I won't recommend actively seeking out negative coverage, any significant criticisms of the album should be included in the article if they exist.
 * Neutral

There are a few instances where the article itself praises the album, instead of just describing who praised it or how it was praised:
 * it captured their mature essence while preserving the charm present since the early years
 * the album's production and well-crafted pop sound
 * the album's upbeat vibe

No recent disputes. The information in the article is not going to be outdated in the near future.
 * Stable

All images are relevant. The cover has an adequate non-free use rationale and the other two are appropriately licensed.
 * Illustrated