Talk:Making a Door Less Open/GA1

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Rambley (talk · contribs) 12:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Samoht27 (talk · contribs)

Starting this review, -Samoht27 (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Verifiable

Looking through the sources...

     1. Citation 1 is widely used within the article, its from a review from an online magazine. I don't particularly trust this source however. Cross-referencing with the corresponding wikiproject's list of source evaluation shows that it is not mentioned. In addition, music isn't the sole focus of the magazine. However, its usage in the article is mostly fine I suppose, being used primarily for critical analysis points, and is cited alongside complementary sources. However I do believe a better source can be used for the "abbreviated as MADLO" claim.

I partially disagree with this evaluation. Just because a publication doesn't only cover music doesn't make it unreliable. Vice and Slant as an example are used throughout the article. These publications cover other topics separate from music; that doesn't affect their reliability. The author, Konstantinos Pappis, has also written for publications like Pitchfork. I do not mind finding another article for the abbreviation; I just think this evaluation is flawed. Rambley (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, this source does pass. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

     2. Citation 2 is from a Stereogum article, the current consensus is that Stereogum is a reliable music publication.
     3. Citation 3 is alright for how it's used, being a simple list of the bands previous material, so using it to simply state that the band has said previous material is a decent usage.
     4. Citation 4 is, similar to Citation 3, good for it's usage in the article, which is to list personnel involved.
     5. This source is a primary source, which is ok for the second instance, where it's used to quote the artist, but for the first instance I think a secondary source might be better.
     6. An interview is good to be used for these details
     7. Source doesn't have consensus as a good source, but the claim made is verifiable.
     8. An interview is fine to use for a quotation.
     9. see #2
 10-12. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    13. This site is generally reliable, but contains some usergenerated content, however this usergen content is not used, so this is a good source.
 14-20. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    21.
    22. Reputable music publication.
    23. This source is ok to be used in the way that it is, quoting the critical review.
 24-32. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    33.
    34. Reputable sourcing, works here and the info provided is verifiable.

Neutral

Y, Article is neutral, and it importantly gives due weight to differing critical perspectives on the record. I think it passes here.

Stable

Y, Passes. Seems stable with no recent edit warring or vandalism. There was a small content dispute not too long ago, but from what I read on the talk page, it seems to be mostly resolved and not a problem that would make sure the article didn't pass this criteria.

Illustrated

Y, Passes. The article is as illustrated as a GA on an album would need to be. The cover is present in the infobox, which is non-free media, but a fair use rationale is provided, so this is not in violation of anything in particular. Another piece of non-free media is a snippet of one of the songs from the album, but again since a fair use rational is provided, and the song is properly compressed and cut, there is no violation here. The final piece of media used is from here. This source is released under creative commons license CC BY-SA 2.0, and thus available for us to use.

The media is relevant to the article, and the captioning is solid. There's no problems here.