Talk:Trip at Knight

Trip at Knight is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by Scientelensia (talk) at 10:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA nomination

I have, as per @Locust member’s suggestion, put this up for GA nomination. I initially had the article reassessed separately as I misunderstood their advice. Scientelensia (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trip at Knight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Scientelensia (talk · contribs) 10:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 22:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this. Locust member (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Locust member@Scientelensia where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’ve been on vacation for two weeks but I’m coming back in a few days. Was planning on knocking this out once I get back. I just took the review to sign on. Locust member (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Apologies for the long wait. Like I stated above, I was away, but right now I can leave some initial comments.

Riff Magazine is unverifiable for reliability and should most likely be removed.
All uses of Genius need to be removed, it is unreliable per WP:GENIUS.
Remove TMZ as it is not preferred WP:TMZ
Never seen In Review before, but it looks okay in this instance due to its writer being Paul Attard (who writes for Slant, a high quality source) and has an editorial team
Remove North Howler, high school newspapers are not high quality
Remove Legends Will Never Die
Remove The Advocate, again high schools newspapers are not high quality
Remove Medium, not reliable per WP:MEDIUM
Earwig reports a major violation; trim down quotes so they are all green.
The article is broad and covers its major topics
Cover has correct fair use rationale, but is missing ALT text. The rest of the images have proper rationales.
Article remains stable, most changes are from nominator and there have been no persistent edit wars recently.