# Talk:Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 08:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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.
a. (reference section): 

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
I will review this today! --K. Peake 08:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Remove the studio parameter from infobox since this is for named studios only, not an unknown location that happens to be in Los Angeles
 Done
"It was released through" → "It was released, along with a visualizer, through" because this information would fit better here
 Done
The lead is quite disordered; songwriting and production should be first, then studio and release as the fourth sentence
 Done
"the track was written by" → "The song was written by" starting the sentence at this point
 Done
Are you not able to add specifically what aspects of the song were praised by critics?
The critics do not seem to hold similar/the same opinions for the song, that I was able to find at least.
"and it received further approval from" → "and further approval was received from" why is The Line of Best Fit listed by name when its only a review?
Because the song was named one of 2021's best by Pitchfork (which is shown in the reception section), which is followed by further approval from LOBF and The Fader (as detailed in the reception section). Saying "received further approval from other publications" sounds a bit WP:WEASEL-y. I don't think LOBF being a review and The Fader listing it as one of the best songs of its release week matter.


### Background and release
Remove overly obvious wikilinks on Florida and Indiana
 Done
"She wrote a new EP" → "Cain wrote a new EP"
 Done
"be for years"." → "be for years."" per MOS:QUOTE and [5] should be re-invoked at the end of each of these sentences using direct quoting
 Done
"on April 23;" → "on April 23, 2021;"
 Done


### Composition
The breakup song part feels out of place at the end of the opening sentence; would writing "It is an indie rock breakup song" at the start flow better?
 Done I agree; this is what I originally had but changed it due to sea of blue issues. I just unlinked breakup song here.
"of me too?" should have the full-stop removed after since the question mark ends the sentence
 Done
"for-Twin Peaks" and said" → "for-Twin Peaks", and said" per American English
 Done


### Critical reception
Again, you should be re-invoking refs at the end of any sentences with direct quoting
 Done


### References
Copyvio score looks great at 23.1%!!!!
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 8 and 10
 Done


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of these issues are fixed; done quickly for you! --K. Peake 09:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick review! All comments handled. Locust member (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Any chance you could take a look at the changes and see if this article can pass? It’s been 10 days. Locust member (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Locust member: If Kyle doesn't respond by the time DYK's out of backlog mode, ping me and I'll take a look myself.--Launchballer 17:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
@Locust member:  Pass now, sorry I never checked back this is fully ready! --K. Peake 08:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)