Talk:Marshmello/GA1

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

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this article soon.100cellsman (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I couldn’t grasp the information of Forbes revealing his identity easily. The section could be worded better.
 * What does the section “which had been previewed by the duo for a long period” mean?
 * “Marshmello's and Dotcom's associating with Shalizi, and the uncovering of their similar tattoos and birthday.” I found this wording awkward.
 * "Having done that,” unnecessary statement.
 * ”During the mid-year” A more precise date would be useful.
 * ”on which he” in > on
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The article uses present tense words inappropriately at times.
 * ”in which Mexican rapper Omar LinX is featured”
 * ”singer-songwriter Wrabel is featured”
 * ”His next single, announced on Twitter, is a collaboration”
 * Pitchfork’s review for Joytime II as mentioned in the lead, isn’t in the article body.
 * The appearance and musical style sections should be joined together as an artistry section.
 * ”Marshmello released his last two singles of 2018” is a dated statement.
 * Alone being released under the label Monstercat isn’t in the article body apart from the lead.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * ”having reached the top 10 in more than 20 countries.” is not in reference 24.
 * ”released through Joytime Collective,” is not in reference 25.
 * ”in which American singer-songwriter Wrabel is featured.” is not in reference 35.
 * Not certain if YourEDM is a reliable source, and reference 16 citing the Ookay, Noah Cyrus and “Chasing Colors” section can be dropped as Billboard is much more reputable.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The infobox says that he has his own YouTube Channel for gaming and cooking besides music, and I can’t find that being mentioned in the article body aside from from his video views.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * “He is managed by Moe Shalizi of Red Light Management, who also manages artists such as Jauz, Ookay and Slushii” I don’t see the need for the other artists under his management.
 * Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato are very well known so its not really necessary to refer to them as a “singer and actress” and a “pop singer” respectively. And Bastille can just be referred to as a “british band” instead of a “British indie pop band“
 * “He covers his identity similarly to other electronic music artists such as Deadmau5 and Daft Punk” There doesn’t need to be a comparison in the lead.
 * “which features Marshmello's pet mouse, Joel (Deadmau5's first name)” Totally unnecessary.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Questionable POV writing:
 * ”with the late rapper, Lil Peep,”
 * ”from established and well-known DJs like Skrillex”
 * ”an organization which aims to help refugees and immigrant children”
 * ”with fellow producer Jauz”
 * The lead mentioning the many artists he collaborated may come off as promotional. Also “his second most-successful career single” is maybe POV?
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images in the article body are kinda cluttered in the article in my opinion.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unfortunately, this article constitutes as a quickfail. I found too many problems than I had anticipated. Hope these problems get resolved for this article to be nominated again.100cellsman (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images in the article body are kinda cluttered in the article in my opinion.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unfortunately, this article constitutes as a quickfail. I found too many problems than I had anticipated. Hope these problems get resolved for this article to be nominated again.100cellsman (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Unfortunately, this article constitutes as a quickfail. I found too many problems than I had anticipated. Hope these problems get resolved for this article to be nominated again.100cellsman (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 27 December update: Issues have been fixed without prior nomination, The article is now promoted.100cellsman (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)