Talk:This Is What the Truth Feels Like/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Review:
 * Grabbing this for a review. I will have my comments up in a couple of days at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that the reference in the lead is required. The sentence and reference about the album release date should be somewhere in the "Release" section as well. As it currently stands, the section does not have a sentence clearly stating its release date, and this is required.
 * In the third paragraph of the lead, change “broadcasr” to “broadcast”
 * Change “during the 2016 Grammy Awards commercial break” to “during a commercial break during the 2016 Grammy Awards”. Keep the link. Your version makes it sound like this was “the” one and only commercial break aired during the award ceremony, and this is not true.
 * ✅ I changed it slightly more than your recommendation; I didn't want to use "during" twice in the same sentence. Carbrera (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Your version is a lot better (I was mainly pointing out the idea). Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For the second paragraph in the “Writing and inspiration” section, make sure to switch around Reference 20 and Reference 26. The early reference always goes before later ones, when listing multiple references.
 * Replace the sample for “Make Me Like You” with a smaller sample as pointed out by Josh Milburn in the talk page.
 * ✅ I don't know how to reduce the sound file itself, so I removed it from the page altogether. I'll contact the user who raised the concern and ask for help with it in the future. Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Add an alt for the Greg Kurstin image.
 * In the second sentence in the “Release” section, be careful of WP:OVERLINKING. I have mentioned this to you before as I have been warned against this in the past. It may be helpful to split the references between those for the 2015 and 2016 lists (but this is up to your own personal preference).
 * ✅ I took your first suggestion for this. Carbrera (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stefani recently performed on the Today show to promote the album and the tour so it might be helpful to add information about this in the “Live performances” subsection. This part may not be necessary however; I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
 * ✅ I just added a bit about this under the aforementioned subsection. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that the Youtube/Vevo link is necessary for the sentence about the release of the "Misery" remixes. I think that the link to iTunes is enough, especially since using Youtube/Vevo as a reference is discouraged and it does not add much. The iTunes link is more stable and clearly shows the release of the remixes.
 * In the “Critical Reception” section, negative responses seem to be more focused on the album being too “calculated” and generic. In the lead, you mention that the negative reviews focus on the lack of a clear focus (breakup album vs. happy outlook). I would recommend revising the sentence in the lead to better reflect the “Critical Reception” section. (I may have missed something so feel free to correct me)
 * ✅ I took your words (basically) and changed it accordingly. Carbrera (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I just added a bit about this under the aforementioned subsection. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not certain that the Youtube/Vevo link is necessary for the sentence about the release of the "Misery" remixes. I think that the link to iTunes is enough, especially since using Youtube/Vevo as a reference is discouraged and it does not add much. The iTunes link is more stable and clearly shows the release of the remixes.
 * In the “Critical Reception” section, negative responses seem to be more focused on the album being too “calculated” and generic. In the lead, you mention that the negative reviews focus on the lack of a clear focus (breakup album vs. happy outlook). I would recommend revising the sentence in the lead to better reflect the “Critical Reception” section. (I may have missed something so feel free to correct me)
 * ✅ I took your words (basically) and changed it accordingly. Carbrera (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took your words (basically) and changed it accordingly. Carbrera (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a very strong article. I can tell that you put a lot of work in this article after the previous GA review. After you address my brief comments, then this should be a quick and easy pass. Aoba47 (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe I have corrected everything in regards to your concerns with the article. Thanks for the review as always; it means a lot! Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Everything looks great. I learned a lot about the album while reading through the article. It is very informative and thorough. I am impressed you could manage to get this much considering the album was just released this year. This is a definite ✅ Congrats!
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: