I am listing this for reassessment because I am concerned this article was not fully evaluated against the GACR. The nomination was passed within an hour after just one minor wording tweak. It does not mention source spot-checking or broader assessment of coverage, prose, neutrality, or possible copyright/over-quotation issues. I think particularly with this article, the extent of direct quotation should have at least been mentioned. Additionally, the GA review progress box template notes that it should not be used without further commentary. This is not intended as criticism of either the nominator or reviewer, as both were clearly acting in good faith. I'm hoping a reassessment can confirm whether the article meets the GACR.Zzz plant (talk)18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1.Well-written: | ||
 | 1a. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Later. |
| 1b. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. | Later. |
| 2.Verifiable withno original research, as shown by asource spot-check: | ||
| 2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline. | Later. |
| 2b.reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould 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). | Later. |
 | 2c. it containsno original research. | The unreferenced passage highlighter brings up no real concerns. Passes. |
| 2d. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. | Earwig shows 28.1% similarity, which is in the green mark, so this passes. |
| 3.Broad in its coverage: | ||
| 3a. it addresses themain aspects of the topic. | Later. |
| 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style). | Later. |
| 4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Later. |
| 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute. | Later. |
| 6.Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: | ||
| 6a. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content. | Image is tagged on Commons under a proper license, and album cover has a proper non-free use rationale, so this passes. |
| 6b. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions. | Album cover is obviously relevant to the topic. I'd say the same thing for the Hitmaka since the image caption says he was an executive producer for Tinashe's (scrapped) mixtape, and the background section talks about it. Passes |
| 7.Overall assessment. | Waiting to see what others think. |