Talk:Shinzō wo Sasageyo!/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Wandering Morpheme 02:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: WanderingMorpheme (talk · contribs) 17:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first good article review so feel free to give me pointers or challenge me on any points that I will make. I'm confident in my English skills but I can always make mistakes so if you don't think my suggestions are good, feel free to let me know. Also I saw on your user page that you might be busy and I will keep that in mind, so don't feel rushed, take all the time you need. Wandering Morpheme 17:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

@WanderingMorpheme: Thank you so much for deciding to review the article! As you mentioned, I am generally busy with college applications at the moment, so my responses and fixes to issues may be weirdly spaced out, but not for any considerable length of time. Going out of your way to do this review: I'll try to take up as little of your time as possible if I can 🙂 Johnson524 21:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingMorpheme: Do you have any more feedback? Johnson524 00:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only a slight comment before closing. I appreciate you changing the text in the contents section but just to make sure we're on the same page, as opposed to writing something "paraphrased" to "look like the original". I think in the source he's talking about paraphrasing to make it "his original", but he says that's stupid and takes pride in taking it straight from the source material, as there was no point in having to paraphrase it, as people want "attack on titan", and not a spin on it. Or at least that's how I interpreted it.

I think with this small fix it's ready to be closed. Thank you for cooperation in getting the article up to standard. Wandering Morpheme 01:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingMorpheme: Ok I think I got it now, thanks for helping me with that 🙂 Johnson524 01:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I will close the review now as pass. Wandering Morpheme 02:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WanderingMorpheme: A million thanks for taking the time to do this review 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 02:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All very good, though some pointers:

Might want to change: "to the anime" -> "for the anime" in the lead (up to you if you want)

Done

Regarding Jiyū: the macron on the u is fine and all, but if it had a macron you would also expect a macron on shinzo (shinzō), and taking a look at the bands spotify page shows that it's written "jiyuu", writing it with 2 u's instead of a macron. This is of course all up to you as this isn't a dealbreaker but I thought I'd mention it.

Done: Went to every article with a link to the old name and updated them as a bonus

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
All good, however I think the "Contents" section should be above the "Other performances", as the article is about the song, with additional information going after that.

Done

Additional comment, perhaps wrapping the three sections "Chart performance", "Certifications" and "Accolades" in a heading called "Reception" and the three sections as subheadings? This suggestion is not required

Done
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Consider putting the notes list above the citations and put a level 3 heading for the citations so both have small headings explaining what they are, OR make them both level 2 headings with the notelist (or "notes") above the references

Done

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
The sources are reliable and all independent with exception of being a link to a webpage by the creators of the song, but it's used appropriately and is supported by another reliable and independent source, and so gets a pass

C. It contains no original research:
- In Background and release: as well as their first original music released in almost four years. The source is talking about the anime not the band, the band released one song in 2015 called "Seishun wa Hanabi no Youni".

Done: Nice catch!

- In Other performances: Linked Horizon would host, primarily in 2017. I would change this to just "in 2017" since the source is from 2017 and doesn't have info about potential future concerts.

Done

- In Other performances: On 20 July 2018, the Dutch symphonic metal band Epica would create a cover version of the song. The source says the song was available at that date but its actual creation was sometime in the summer, no specific date is given for the creation. You could fix this by changing from "created" to "was released" (or something along those lines) and/or mention it was created in the summer of 2017

Done: Really nice catch!

- In Chart performance: the song would be streamed over 100 million times on the audio streaming service Spotify, becoming the first and only Linked Horizon song to accomplish the feat. The source does not say that it would be the only one, just that it was a one, and looking at the current spotify numbers show that Guren no Yumiya has reached the same feat. This is not a big issue but I think keeping up to date with the numbers would be nice, there are a few ways to fix this, either you could cut out the "only" or say and introduce a newer source that says that Guren no Yumiya also attained this feat, but later. Either should be fine.

Done: Opted with cutting the "only", I appreciate you looking into that!

- In Contents: Revo would later say in an interview with the Japanese music network BARKS [ja], that he would "pull out the words from Attack on Titan with pride" to make the song enjoyable for both Linked Horizon and Attack on Titan fans. I'm afraid this is a bit WP:SYNTH, the two statements are not connected in the source and not implied so. Also the part about making the song enjoyable for both types of fans is about the upcoming tour and not about the song itself.

This part is rather tricky to fix, one idea might be to remove the part about "for the fans" and just keep the part about the word plucking, as it's more about the tour which would be more appropriate on the article about the band itself I think. With this I think it would be good to expand on why he talks about pride, he describes in the same paragraph that he didn't want to paraphrase the source material to make it more "original". I think this is a good trade-off for the lost text if the other bit removed.

Done, and I agree

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
All good here, text is summarizing and attributes correctly when quoting
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No problems here

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
All sections stay on the topic of the article and without going into unnecessary detail on any particular topic
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No problems here, article stays on topic and only speaks the facts
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No dispute, pass
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The cover is non-free but tagged with the right copyright status and rationale, no problems here

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The image is relevant and has a good caption
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article has been raised to the standard and so passes the review, good job Johnson524!

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.