Talk:Wish You Were Gay/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Tkbrett (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review inbound. Tkbrett (✉) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Template formats are beyond the scope of the Good Article criteria, so this isn't a necessary change to pass this article, but just be aware that the Written parameter in the song infobox template is meant for songs from before the advent of recorded music or sheet music publishing. Something like "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot".
- I point out the wording in the documentation: "usually used for historical songs". Setting personal objections aside, I could understand removing the parameter if the documentation said the use was exclusive to historical songs. Now for my personal objection, I see no merit in removing the year of writing in the infobox because it is basic and essential information to include for readers just like recording dates (if the writing date has available references of course). Many other GAs and FAs about 21st-century songs seem to include this parameter where applicable, too
  - Fair enough. Again, it's beyond the GA criteria so it can't hold up this review, but it's something that'll come up at a FAC though. I'm all about removing extraneous stuff in infoboxes as I find they tend to get more and more bloated over time, when it's best to just have the most essential items listed instead.
... about the songs that inspired each track from When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. To avoid the double punctuation, either remove the period or better yet reword the sentence (MOS:CONSECUTIVE).
- Reworded both
  - Good.
I find it odd that this image is marked as CC 3.0 since it comes from a YouTube video of an MTV performance, something I've never seen done before. I'll ping the uploader (100cellsman) to get a sense of what's going on.

YouTube has the option to mark videos as creative commons. The video is privated now but it was uploaded under that license. 10 0cellsman 23:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I never knew that. Thanks for clearing this up. Tkbrett (✉) 01:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other image is PD and is fine for inclusion.
I've made some other fixes that weren't worth bringing up here ([1] & [2])
Copyvio is a good 36.3%. No copyright issues to worry about.

Apologies it took this long to get to the review. The song's lyrics seem pretty tame compared to all the hubbub mentioned in this article. I wish she pushed it a bit more, like that song by of Montreal. Tkbrett (✉) 21:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the waiting time @Tkbrett! Either way you provided your review, and that already inspires gratitude. Responses to your first two comments above. Looking forward to your thoughts. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 12:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Power, this article is well written and well prepared, so there's no reason to hold it up. ✓ Pass Tkbrett (✉) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice words, @Tkbrett. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.