Talk:Weird Faith/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll get a review of this written within the next few days. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 22:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

, I've evaluated everything except for the prose itself. The main issue right now is the use of quotes, and any fix to that is likely to significantly alter the text, so I'm going to put it on hold now and evaluate the prose after everything else is addressed. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 02:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Background and production:
 * Well-written
 * Diaz also began working on her sixth studio album, Weird Faith. – This reads like a side tangent even though it's the main subject of the article.
 * Changed.
 * in Nashville and in upstate New York, recorded the album in upstate New York – Can this be written to avoid having "upstate New York" twice in a row?
 * Changed.
 * including trusting the growth of her career and her relationships with her new manager, label, and romantic partner – This is a little wordy and hard to follow.
 * Changed.

Composition and themes:
 * This section reads more like a list of opinions than an encyclopedic summary of the themes, but it's not bad enough that it causes problems with the GA criteria and it won't affect the review.
 * I'll keep working on that section post-GA.
 * Weird Faith has been described and Critics have described – Introducing two sentences in a row with "described" affects the sentences' flow.
 * Changed.

Critical reception:
 * This also feels like a list of opinions, but I understand that this is more difficult with reception sections. Again, won't affect the review.
 * Same as above.
 * For Glide Magazine, Dillon wrote that Diaz's blunt songwriting "anchor[s]" listeners – Blunt is being said in wikivoice, I suggest clarifying that Dillon said it was blunt.
 * Changed.
 * the album focused on "processing emotion" – This is more of a theme than critical reception. There are a few other borderline cases, and it might be worth looking through this section again to see if any of them are analysis of the composition or themes instead of critics' opinions.
 * I removed that from the prose, but didn't add it to the themes section since it's already got Donelson's analysis.


 * Verifiable with no original research


 * I don't know whether there's consensus that this is mandatory, but you might want to cite the personnel section, even if it's a single citation at the beginning of the list to the album's liner notes.

The article is missing release information. Album articles commonly have a section on the release and promotion. Even if there's not enough for a full section, the basics should still be included as part of the production. Most pressingly is that the release date isn't found in the body.
 * Broad in its coverage
 * Added.

No neutrality issues. The article is written in a neutral tone, and no ideas are given undue emphasis.
 * Neutral

No recent disputes. The article might benefit from an update over the years if more is written about the album, but that's not urgent and it wouldn't require significant rewrites.
 * Stable

One non-free image with a valid non-free use rationale.
 * Illustrated

Comments addressed above. I've also added a couple of reviews to the review section. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the quotation issue is still there. I checked the composition and themes section: about a quarter of the section, 125/525 words, is in quotes (not counting song titles). Same issue in the reception section. Quotations of copyrighted sources are non-free content and should only be used when necessary. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 00:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: I've trimmed some more quotes. If you think I need to trim more, I'm happy to do a fresh pass. If you have suggestions, I'm open to them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the prose. At this point it's just a few minor points on wording/organization. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien, thanks. Any spots in particular you want me to go over again? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just the points I've listed above—the quoting has been trimmed down enough and any other possible changes are beyond the scope of GA. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 23:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that you had put the comments above since I was automatically jumped down to the comment here when I clicked on the notification. I'll get on those shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thebiguglyalien: done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)