Talk:Ecstacy (song)

Ecstacy (song) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 29, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

Failed. Santi (talk) 01:52, 28 April 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ecstacy (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EternalBaile (talk · contribs) 00:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pollosito (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for what I am going to do, but I have to quickly ✗ Fail this nomination. Kind of cuestionable prose, grammatical mistakes, short lead and references at it (not necessarily GA criteria, but due to style, it will look better if all the sources are placed at the body, not lead), an audio sample used twice in the article, oversourcing (too many consecutive references cited for a short sentence) and lack of single chart usage (Canada, European charts, for instance, have also their respective parameter). It is strongly notable that this article is unprepared for GA standarts. I recommend you a peer review and/or Guild of Copy-Editors request and invite another user to contribute and co-nominate in the future. Good luck! Santi (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]