Talk:GBI (German Bold Italic)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 07:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Images

1. No fair use images, neat

References

1. References seem to be formatted and organized really nicely; unless I'm overlooking something, does not seem to use any low-quality sources. Will do a spotcheck after reviewing the article itself.

Lead

1. Changed 'has little success' to 'had little success'
2. Otherwise, lead seems solid (will come 'round back if it seems like a vital aspect of the article is absent from the summary)

Infobox

1. All details important for the infobox appear to be present, and vice versa with the article

Background and production

1. All good

Composition

1. Seems fine, though if I may ask, which source is being used to say that she "seductively reads her line"?

I changed "seductively reads her line" -> "seductively talks" (per Independent: "... features Minogue talking and giggling over a minimalist house rhythm") Damian Vo (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Release and remixes

1. All good

Reception

1. Is there anything that you feel may be gained by expanding the reception provided by Priya Elan?

• Sadly the author only mentioned it as one of Kylie's most interesting yet lesser-known collabs Damian Vo (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

1. I tweaked 'has' to 'had' again, as the arguments made for its lack of commercial success are all past tense

Production and synopsis

1. All good, although I think that the following line about it not being released fits better here than in the following section.

Reception and analysis

1. All good

Aftermath

1. I feel it may be a little redundant to say "has made several..." and "has worn traditional..." maybe change it to "where she wore"

• Fixed

Comments

1. Will finish tomorrow, too dang tired. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
2. Done reviewing the text, will do a spotcheck soon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed the following:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

I'm comfortable that these sources indicate the article is accurately citing external sites. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up for a review. I almost forgot I nominated this article back in June. I fixed all of the issues you mentioned above. Please let me know if you have any more questions Damian Vo (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Good job on the article and the (very few) changes! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)