Talk:Consolation (song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Consolation (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 2, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![WikiProject icon](#/media/File:WikiProject_Songs_7"_record_on_sheet_music.png){kind=small}
GA review
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Consolation (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: VirreFriberg (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 14:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Being a bottled up nomination for long, I will take interest in reviewing your "Consolation" nomination for GA-status. - RTSthestardust (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- @VirreFriberg Congrats. Just added a simple alt text and fixed several grammar issues. Beyond that, it's well-done and I will pass your nomination. - RTSthestardust (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Notes
- Fixed several grammar issues.
- Added alt text.
GA Criteria Table
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
 |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is pretty good |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Well-detailed and consistent as a 21K article being based on a 1966 single. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citation structure is well-done, especially the notes and books sections |
|
2b. 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). | No inconsistencies; good extra detail with notes |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research is spotted |
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Highest is 4.8%, which is great; it may be due to being cited from books and newspapers, but it's not enough to register in copyvio territory. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The lead, composition/recording, release/commercial performance, reception/legacy, personnel, and charts sections are evenly well-covered. |
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Consistent with no distracting issues spotted |
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues here. |
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Highest percentage is 99.1%, as you created the article as a top author; also very stable. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | This article contains one non-free file and one free files, all containing proper sources and rationales. |
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Added alt text; good description for PD photo. |
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |