# Talk:Woman of Steel (album)

@Afí-afeti: I reverted your edit because it is false. Please read this source. Alade signed a licensing agreement with Universal Music Africa (UMA), a subsidiary of UMG. The source I cited didn't say she has a licensing deal with UMG itself. Do you have a reliable source that says the album was released under UMG?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woman of Steel (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Versace1608 (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Iostn (talk · contribs) 22:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Starting review, this is my first time reviewing a GA so I may make mistakes but I hope to do this reasonably quickly. Iostn (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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): 
No issues found
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
the copyvio tool did pick up the phrase "abusive grandmother and a mundane life in rural Nigeria" which is very minor but may need rewording, also I am unsure about the reliability of the FilterFree source given the lack of author info and the fact that the site staff page doesn't even give much info Issue fixed by nominator
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Background/release, composition/lyrics and reception all covered
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No issues
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No issues
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): 
Only image used is tagged as album art under fair use
Overall: @User:Versace1608 finished review, there are a couple of minor issues that may need looking into before passing Iostn (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello Iostn, thanks for reviewing the article. I reworded the sentence you mention and removed the Filter Free source from the article. I believe the source is decent but I won't hold up the nomination for it. I'd appreciate it if you could close this nomination and pass the article since the issues you raised have been addressed.   Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
@Versace1608 Sorry for my absence the past couple of days, I've finalized and promoted it, congrats! Iostn (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

Hey Versace1608 and Iostn, I have a bit of feedback and a few questions about the GAN review on a quick skim of the article. (For clarity, these comments are not a DCWC coordinator action.)

The review still needs a text–source integrity spot check as required in the GAN review instructions.
What makes Glitz Africa a reliable source?
Not a huge deal, but there are a few duplicated citations. This script should make it easy to find and fix them.
Let me know what you both think about these. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: I edited the sentence and replace the source. I am not sure what you mean by "text-source integrity". I do not how to to use that particular script and do not believe the article contains duplicate sources. Perhaps, you can help fix the duplicate citation issues in the article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
You can read more about text–source integrity at the link in my message, but in the context of the GAN review I'm referring to the source spot-checks that need to be done before promoting to GA. I've gone ahead and fixed the duplicates, but I thought the script might come in handy in case you run into the issue in the future — you can install it by adding "{{subst:iusc|User:Polygnotus/DuplicateReferences.js}}" to your common.js page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't completely sure what TSI even was based on the guideline page, but nothing in the templates appeared incorrectly formatted, I approved Glitz Africa as it appears to be a professional publication with sidebar info on subscriptions, although returning to it after it was mentioned here, I did notice there is no author information @TechnoSquirrel69 Iostn (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@Iostn: Text–source integrity is the verification that the article's content is supported by its sources. When I do a GAN review, I like to take a random sampling of sentences (say, around ten to twenty) and check the citation at the end of that sentence to make sure the claims there are actually present in the source. Like I mentioned, this is a required step during the review, so I would recommend you revisit the review page and add that. As for Glitz Africa, the standard for a newspaper or magazine to be a reliable source is that it "engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy", per § News organizations of the guideline. Usually, this is determined by checking if the publication has an editorial board; whether it has a subscription service is not that relevant in this regard. By the way, if you would like help from an experienced editor for this review, you can request a mentor to guide you through the process. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)