Talk:Karma (Taylor Swift song)

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Taylor Swift Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:Karma (Taylor Swift song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tantomile (talk · contribs) 02:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	to the point	Pass
(b) (MoS)	no violations	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	several appropriate references	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	all citations function	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	none seen	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	explains subject well	Pass
(b) (focused)	offers context when needed, but not excessively	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
stable	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	non-free images are only used as needed	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	worthy of GA status

Discussion

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.

Reference

Cwilsyn, the talk page is not closed, just that one review above. You can comment here in this section, or use the "Add topic" link at the top of any talk page to add a new section. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, blushes I didn't remember what the tiny + was for. I'll probably come back for specific help in a few hours. Cwilsyn (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)