Talk:Shinee/GA3

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Starting review
Hello,. Hope you are okay. I'll pick this review up and will hopefully have some feedback for you soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) ''Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll use this checklist as I go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made a start by reading it quickly to get a feel for the article. I've checked the images which all appear to be at least fair use. The article is stable, its layout is okay and the short list sections are okay. I need to do an in-depth read next to check the main criteria. Hoping to be back later this week. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Review
I've managed to create a spare time slot and decided to fit this in as I was already quite confident about its chances. A great deal of work has gone into the article and it contains a massive amount of information, but it is all within scope and essentially presented as a summary. The prose is fine so, although there's a lot to take in, it's an enjoyable read and I've learned a bit about a group I was not at all familiar with – I'd like to hear them now! I couldn't see any spelling errors and you haven't used any dubious words or expressions. The terminology is okay and I can't see any copyright issues.

I do have just a couple of points for you to consider.

You might want to check your singulars and plurals – for example, "Shinee is known for their fashion style", which is a mixture of the two. It should be either "they are known for their" or "it is known for its". You need to decide if Shinee are a they or if Shinee is an it and then be consistent throughout. This is a very minor point of grammar, though, and I'm not going to fail a GA review for something like that, but it would be an issue if you decide to take the article to WP:FAC.

While I'm happy that the article complies with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, I have to take WP:V on trust because there's no way I can comment on the WP:RS of the many Korean sources. However, I have no reason to doubt the sources and you have obviously worked hard to ensure that everything is sourced. Citation style and details are good.

Having said all that, this is a good article and I'm passing it. I'll do the necessary at WP:GA/MU. Well done. All the best and look after yourselves. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)