Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: HereIGoAgain (talk · contribs) 02:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the prose came up as a significant issue during the first GA review, I'll be going over it especially carefully as I complete the review (hopefully today or tomorrow). So far so good! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ganesha811, by reading the review 2b criteria you have mentioned, I do have those files but they were all uploaded to a WordPress website which the files are still around in circulation, in physical copies, which they are used as offline sources. I've had this issue before on this previous article nomination that the reviewer informed me about this due to response to WP:COPYVIOEL, they are cited as WP:Offline sources

Since Wikipedia does not allow wordpress websites as citations since those are external links that lead to copyright violations, I can give you an info to clear up with the whole file source from each and every particular source you've pointed out:

- The "Double Time" source is a press release, right? It would be better to have a more independent source without a vested interest in promoting Oslin. File: [1]

- The "Cut-by-Cut" source - what is that exactly? Written by Oslin herself - do we have anything more independent we could use instead? File: [2]

- "March is the release date" what kind of source is this? Magazine, book, press release? File: [3], Page 5

- Using RCA's "Various publication quotes" as a source is no good, of course they're going to pull positive quotes only. Relying on it tilts the article away from NPOV. File: [4]

And to answer your question on the photo file (criteria 6a), this file was a press promo in by the official RCA Label in 1987, but it's copyright does not apply, which is in the public domain due to its timeframe between 1978 and 1989 without copyright notice in the United States. I looked the exact file and its title up in the copyright website and it does not appear in the system, meaning it is out of copyright.

The rest... I can address it and will let you know if anything changes or is being replaced! HereIGoAgain (talk) 08:33, 26 January 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.	"highest ever debut position" is that still accurate, or was it the highest-to-date in 1987?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Since Oermann and Whitburn are only used once each, they can just be listed in the References section with all the other citations - no need to separate into 'Footnotes' and 'Book Sources'.
	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).	The "Double Time" source is a press release, right? It would be better to have a more independent source without a vested interest in promoting Oslin For Boehm, no need for all-caps title Per WP:RSN, AllMusic's accuracy is questionable for biography - please replace with a more reliable source. The "Cut-by-Cut" source - what is that exactly? Written by Oslin herself - do we have anything more independent we could use instead? "Country Legends" CD booklet is just not independent enough to be used in this manner, the company has a vested interest in promoting her. Paulson - Tennesseean should be italicized - inconsistent with the other use of the source. Hurst - no need for all-caps title "March is the release date" what kind of source is this? Magazine, book, press release? Quote from Ronnie is too long and can be shortened. Is "Country Universe" a reliable source? Gleanson, no need for all-caps. Using RCA's "Various publication quotes" as a source is no good, of course they're going to pull positive quotes only. Relying on it tilts the article away from NPOV.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Cite #25, cited directly to the song Younger Men, seems like OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig picks up nothing beyond a few inline quotes - nothing actionable. Hold for manual spot check. Spot check of 6 sources shows no issue.
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).	No significant areas of overdetail.
	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.	Fairly stable after copyedit - no issues on talk other than Wordpress which seems resolved.
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.	Two fair use album covers, no issues. Why do we believe that File:K.T. Oslin 1987 Promo.jpg was published without a copyright notice?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.