Talk:Growing Up (The Linda Lindas album)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Growing Up (The Linda Lindas album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 05:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Sharpest Lives: Hi! I'm delighted to participate in the first GAN review circle, and even more delighted to be able to review your nomination. I'll try and get back to you within the next few days (Wednesday ~11PM EST at the latest). If you have any questions, feel free to ping me or let me know on my talk page! Joeyquism (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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.	Prose is mostly okay, though some concerns arise: The excerpts from the main Linda Lindas article in the background section are fine, but they take up a majority of the article (it's the largest section in the entire thing, as far as I can tell). I would suggest maybe using it as a starting point for describing the formation and the single "Racist, Sexist Boy", but it shouldn't be the most descriptive part of the article. Plus, the inclusion of more important details about "Racist, Sexist Boy" in the background prevents you from writing about it in more detail below. I noticed that the sentence in the composition section The anti-racist song "Racist, Sexist Boy" was written about an encounter Mila de la Garza had with a boy at school is rather short and lacks the detail that can be found in the background section. Growing Up was recorded and mixed at Music Friends, which is Carlos de la Garza's backyard studio. — I think "which is" can be excluded here. Including it makes it seem a bit amateurish. "Racist, Sexist Boy" has commonly been compared to riot grrrl sound and ideals. — Can you explain what "ideals" refers to? Wong cut the dolls freehand, intending for them to appear like the band members as cats. — Remove wikilink for band members, and perhaps phrase it more like "represent" as opposed to "appear like". The song "Nino" was written about Bela Salazar's cat. She had previously written a song about her cat, Monica, which appeared in the Linda Lindas' eponymous EP (2020). Feeling that Nino "wouldn't leave her alone until he got a song too", Salazar wrote the song "Nino" for him. — In the first sentence, you should clarify that Nino is also the name of her cat (for a bit, I thought it was somehow about Monica). Something like "of the same name" at the end of that sentence would be good, and then insert "other" before "cat" in the second sentence. ...the band performed a Tiny Desk (Home) Concert at the Los Angeles Public Library... — Not sure if "(Home)" is necessary; is this how other articles do it? I do understand that's how it was rebranded during the COVID years, but I would take precedence from other articles. Either way, this is minutiae and can likely be ignored; the point is made clearly. ...with some shows alongside Japanese Breakfast, Bacchae, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs. — Remove "some"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Some issues: The lead is a bit short considering the depth of the content that appears in the article. I would include more about the genres, themes, the COVID background, and composition. Words such as "comments" and "calls" in the critical reception section should be in the past tense. The track listing should be using Template:Track listing. If you need help with formatting, let me know; I struggle with it myself at times.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good. Liner notes and videos are attributed with the proper citation templates.
	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 excerpt from the main Linda Linda article contains some questionable and deprecated sources. I'm seeing a Wordpress link, and some sources (Mediaite and Pollstar) that don't seem like they would fly by on WP:RS. All the more reason to write a new background section. Otherwise, other sources for original writing seem good. (Edit: for the sentence Growing Up was recorded and mixed at Music Friends, which is Carlos de la Garza's backyard studio., only the backyard studio part is corroborated by the cited source. I'm sure the liner notes would confirm the name of the studio as Music Friends.) Source spot check: [2] — Definitely remove this. Other than this and the others I mentioned above, the other sources in the background section look promising (1, 7, 8, 10 look great) [11] [15] [22] [29] — Include the work (Consequence of Sound) [33] [40] [42] [49] [53] [59] — The author is not Conde Nast (that's a dead guy, and also the publishing company that owns Teen Vogue). The author is Sara Delgado. [63] [71] [74]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing that I can find that resembles original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returned 47.1% similarity. While I realize that these are because of quotations, I feel like you can clean it up a bit with paraphrasing (especially the Bela Salazar quote). Otherwise, other sources are clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think more can be said about the writing and recording stage; for instance, in the Rolling Stone article, I found the following excerpt: "As with the EP, the album was written during the first lockdown phase of the pandemic in 2020, when the girls had to attend school remotely and couldn’t see one another or other friends regularly. They say they found it cathartic to write down their feelings of loneliness and confusion." This can be included and expanded upon.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused on the subject and its creators with no discernable content about other extraneous topics.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No overly laudatory or scathing comments; everything is written to describe the album as is.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring here.
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.	Looks good. Perhaps make the picture of Carlos de la Garza bigger, and consider including some audio clips if possible. Otherwise, good job on illustrating the article!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Looks good.
	7. Overall assessment.	@The Sharpest Lives: For now, I'm putting this on hold. The content is clear and relatively well-written, but it needs some moderate tweaking and some expanding in order for me to feel comfortable passing it. Sources are mostly good (well done!), but a few need to be removed due to reliability/verifiability concerns. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I wasn't too familiar with the Linda Lindas other than "Racist, Sexist Boy" before reading this, and from what I've now learned, I feel like they're a wholesome bunch to listen to. Very glad to be able to review your work! --Joeyquism (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)