Talk:Big Dawgs/GA1

GA review

Unsuccessful. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 10:57, 2 October 2025 (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

Nominator: Gdshordy (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 12:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article has many issues. I will give you three days on hold. If you pass these three days, I will consider failing. Broadness is a major issue here.

Criterion 1

See WP:LEADCITE: The lead should not have citations.
Many parts of Reception which are supposed to be in Commercial performance should be moved.
"song together" this needs a period after.

Criterion 2

I do not see anything about motion sickness in source 10.
I see nothing about Spotify and TikTok virality in source 13.
"Outside of India, the song peaked within..." this is a straight up unsourced sentence.
Source 22 and 45 are unreliable. Can you try to find a replacement source?

Criterion 3

There needs to be more about the song's internet virality. A sentence or two is not sufficient enough, it maybe even needs a section itself.
There is absolutely nothing about the song's development, yet it is really easy to find online.
Shouldn't there be more about the music video's development, like post-production?
For the Reception, there should be reviews from professionals too.
Shouldn't there be more about the Remix?

The Rest of the Criterion

Criterion 4: This article seems neutral.
Criterion 5: This article seems stable.
Criterion 6: The article seems illustrated, but I suggest adding an image about where they filmed it.

This is my review. See my comment in Overall assessment. @Gdshordy: pinging nom. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had just checked the authorship. Did you consult the main author @AdobongPogi: that you were going to nominate this? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdshordy: any updates? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 07:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it at the moment. Gdshordy (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdshordy: Only AdobongPogi has made edits. Please fix the rest of the issues. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:16, 29 September 2025 (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.