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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Zirthes (talk · contribs) 00:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: ThrettanJuni (talk · contribs) 06:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article as part of the June backlog drive. I've read the article and ran it on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It detected a possible violation as to one source but upon reviewing, I think it is a false positive. Upon further review, I found no reason to quick fail this article, so kindly expect a full review on the next few days.
Also, I am a new GA reviewer, so I will be waiting on an experienced reviewer as per the backlog drive's guidelines to check my work. Your patience will be highly appreciated. Thanks! ThrettanJuni (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See discussion below.
Okay.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The article complies with the required Manual of Style sections.
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- See discussion below. Okay.
- 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):
- See discussion below.
- C. It contains no original research:
- The article attributes the descriptions of the music and the themes directly to the artist's press releases, interviews, or music critics.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A reference ([8]) was flagged by Earwig's Copyvio Detector with a high similarity score. Upon manual inspection, this is a false positive; the matched text consists of properly attributed inline quotes directly from the album's press release. The remainder of the article summarizes sources accurately without close paraphrasing or copyright violations.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- The article covers all expected areas for a music album.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- The text stays strictly on topic.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article maintains a neutral tone throughout.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- There are no evidence of ongoing edit wars or instability upon reviewing the "View history" tab.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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 album cover carry a proper Creative Commons license and a valid fair-use rationale.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Okay
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Pass
I am placing the nomination on hold for now. The errors pointed out (see comments below) must be edited before it can be officially listed as a Good Article. Also, an experienced reviewer needs to check thoroughly and review my work before you may edit. Thanks for your patience!ThrettanJuni (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- @ThrettanJuni: you should change the parameter on the talkpage to "on hold" only then the nominator will be notified of it. I have done it for you now. Vestrian24Bio 10:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for reviewing the article. I have now implemented the changes that you identified. Zirthes (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Zirthes! Kindly review my comment below which is indicated by the
icon for cleanups. Cheers! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have made the required changes to the mentioned genres, let me know if that is satisfactory. Zirthes (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Zirthes Looks good! Pinging @Vestrian24Bio for a review. Cheers! -- ThrettanJuni (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have made the required changes to the mentioned genres, let me know if that is satisfactory. Zirthes (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Zirthes! Kindly review my comment below which is indicated by the
Discussion
Lead section
Okay.
Background
Note that the Mika quotation (reference [8]) is 40 words and ideally should not be formatted as a blockquote per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. However, since WP:GACR only strictly requires compliance with five specific MoS sections (lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists), I will not hold up the GA review for this, but I recommend fixing it for general MoS compliance. Okay.
Composition
Hyperlove is a pop album, which also incorporates sounds of electropop, synth-pop and alternative rock.
- Reference [10] describes the album as "synth-filled", yet it stops short of explicitly identifying it as "synthpop". While synthpop is a defined genre, if you are focusing on the integration of specific sounds, styles, and textures, it might be more appropriate to simply use the term "synth".
- You may remove reference [6] since it does not describe the album as "synth-pop", but only "synth-filled". Also, under reference [7], it mentions that the album incorporates dance sounds since the citation discussed that some of the album's parts are "dance-based", while some are "in the region of synth pop". Maybe you can integrate it in the sentence by describing it as incorporating sounds of "electropop, synth-pop, and dance".
The line also mentions "alternative rock" as an incorporated sound but no source was given. Kindly remedy this. Okay.
- Reference [10] describes the album as "synth-filled", yet it stops short of explicitly identifying it as "synthpop". While synthpop is a defined genre, if you are focusing on the integration of specific sounds, styles, and textures, it might be more appropriate to simply use the term "synth".
Promotion
The track reached number 27 on the UK Airplay Chart in January 2026.
- The reference cited in this (Reference [14]) does not reflect the position it gave. Upon reviewing the link, it also does not have a date selector. I figured that the site changes the chart weekly. Basically, the original link is live but doesn't support the article text now.
Maybe you can find an archived link of that time the song has entered said chart. You should attempt to locate an archived snapshot of the page using the Wayback Machine, Ghost Archive, or Megalodon, then if you find a valid snapshot, you can update your citation template. If no archive exists, per WP:KDL, you may not delete the citation. In this case, you can tag the reference with {{dead link}} to signal that the link no longer supports the text, keeping the citation intact for transparency. Okay.
"Excuses For Love"
"For" should be "for". Okay.
The European leg will include...
Since the European leg has ended, it should be "included" instead of "will include". Okay.
Critical reception
Okay.
Commercial performance
Track listing
Additionally, it placed at number four on the UK Albums Sales Chart, and at number seven on the UK Vinyl Albums Chart.
You can remove this as per WP:CHARTMATH, since it was already discussed that the album charted in the official UK Albums chart with...5,108 album-equivalent units in its first week
. Okay.
Elsewhere, Hyperlove debuted at number fifteen in Switzerland, and number four in Wallonia.
Kindly remove the comma after Switzerland, as commas should not be used between compound subjects. Okay.
Personnel
Okay.
Charts
Okay.
Experienced reviewer comments
@ThrettanJuni and Zirthes:
- Add an appropriate ENGVAR template to the page.
- Album cover image is missing an alt text.
- The page shows Category:CS1: unfit URL; not sure why but should be fixed.
- Ref 1 is showing Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes), fix it.
- Ref 20 (Daily Star) is an unreliable source, remove it and the review.
- The dead link (ref 38) should be replaced with a live one or an archive..
- Add translated titles to refs 30 & 35.
- Tag the language and a translated title to ref 34.
- Replace the curly quotes (’) with straighter ones (') - per MOS:CQ
- Why is dance music mentioned in the Composition section, but isn't included in the lead or infobox..?
- WP:DUPELINKs,
- Glasgow is linked twice in the Live performances section.
- Rolling Stone in the Critical reception section.
- The Boy Who Knew Too Much (album) in the Commercial performance section.
- Was a source spot-check conducted as part of the review..?
That's all I got here.. Vestrian24Bio 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Vestrian24Bio! Regarding the conduct of a source spot-check, yes, I did conduct it thoroughly as part of the review. I ran the article through Earwig’s Copyvio Detector which produced a "Violation unlikely" report and manually verified each individual citation against its source for accuracy and close paraphrasing. ThrettanJuni (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the additional comments. I will make the required changes shortly. Zirthes (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hello @Vestrian24Bio, I have now made the required changes to the article that you identified. Zirthes (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ThrettanJuni All else good to pass. Vestrian24Bio 03:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Much thanks again, @Vestrian24Bio! Passing this article now. ThrettanJuni (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- @ThrettanJuni All else good to pass. Vestrian24Bio 03:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
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.