Talk:Treat Myself/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
 * It contains copyright infringements -
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

 * Two links to forbes in refs - what makes this reliable for this topic? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the discogs External links suitable? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede

 * Musically, Treat Myself was Trainor's attempt to create a pop record that feels relevant in an era when hip-hop reigns. - is this what she has said, or a point made by someone? I didn't realise hip-hop was all encompassing? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Treat Myself was released to mixed reviews from critics, with some of them thinking that it was worth the wait and others criticizing the lyrical content - probably need to reword "it was worth the wait". Perhaps that the quality was suitable for the delay, or otherwise. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

General

 * No duplinks! Great job! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trainor stated in a January 2020 interview that Treat Myself will be an attempt to make a pop record that feels relevant in an era when hip-hop reigns, adding that she had written four albums worth of material trying to adapt to new trends in the music industry - same as the lede, probably needs a quote here. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The quotebox is a bit much. But, I can see why it's important to give a clarity as to how she got the name. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trainor described the new version of Treat Myself as her attempt to adapt to "what's going on in the music industry", wanting to answer the question that "how do you make pop records that feel relevant in an era when hip-hop reigns?" this is mentioned twice in prose. Probably doesn't need to be in the background section at all. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

 * 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:

Comments

 * Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
 * I'm going to go ahead and just pass this one. It's well referenced, with a couple minor issues described above. I'd look at confirming about forbes, but its not enough for me to chuck on hold. Good job. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks a lot. I will surely try to return the favour should I get the time.--NØ 14:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Clearly meets the criteria. I don't quick pass articles very often! If you are interested in anything further, my opinions are above. Well done. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)