Talk:Mad Woman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

Passed. Arconning (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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:Mad Woman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Medxvo (talk · contribs) 15:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 06:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Shall review. Arconning (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Medxvo (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Medxvo I do apologize if it's a short review but this is all I could find! Arconning (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Arconning: Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article, I really appreciate it! I believe I've addressed your points. I also responded to your points at Peace (Taylor Swift song), just in case my ping there didn't go through.. I hope you're having a great day! Medxvo (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose and MoS

Lead and infobox

  • "received certifications in Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.", could be nice to differentiate them. :)

Background and production

  • "Kyle Resnick provided viola and violin recording.", could you clarify this?
    • Should be done, I think.. Medxvo (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Composition

  • "Several journalists", "some of Swift's fans", could said people have some examples on who they are?
    • I've now attributed this to the journalists in the footnote (I think it would be too much if I attributed this in the prose itself), and also removed the fans part (not really needed and not explicitly stated in the sources)... Medxvo (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Release and live performances

  • " Rolling Stone journalists picked the medley performance as one of the 40 best moments from the tour.", if they're ranked could its rank be included? I can't tell from the source itself...
    • They appear ranked indeed but the source says they were ranked "in chronological order", i.e. starting with moments from the first night, then the second night, and so on, so they don't seem like actual rankings... Medxvo (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Critical reception

  • No issues. All good.

Commercial performance and the rest...

  • No issues. All good.

Media

  • The singular image is relevant (interesting too! piqued my interest), proper licensing and a nice caption.

Refs

  • Earwig's alright.
  • Ref checks: 1, 7, 16, 20, 21, 25, 36. All good.

Misc

  • No ongoing edit war, broad enough information, neutral.
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.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI