# Talk:Sobrevivendo no Inferno

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sobrevivendo no Inferno/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 16:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Barbalalaika (talk · contribs) 06:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Saudações, meu rei. I'll gladly review this one! If I'm not done today (10.10.25) then you'll get it on Monday (13.10.25). I've skimmed through it and found some points I want to comment on, but nothing that would stop it from getting the GA once adressed :)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Comments:
Some Portuguese quotes/titles are translated and some events specific to Brazil are clarified, which is great, but not consistently applied. For example: I'd include a translation of every album/track in parenthesis; a short explanation that Capão Redondo is a district; a short explanation of Ogum (most readers aren't aware of African-Brazilian religions); Primo Preto isn't introduced as a singer; etc.
Done. The titles of tracks are translated in track listing section. Cattos💭 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I added brief explanations of Ogum and Candomblé.
I also copied your track translations to sections earlier in the article, since readers will either read that first or read specific sections separately. The translation of Salve I changed from "hello" to "greedings", seemed more appropriate to me, but as always feel free to comment. Barbalalaika (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Please decide if you want to use the Oxford comma or not, and apply it consistently throughout the article. Sometimes I saw it, sometimes not.
Done Cattos💭 16:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
"In the first songs during production, there was a "ball happening there, in the 'samplers' and 'scratches", while the lyrics portrayed the harsh reality of the periphery." -- I don't understand this sentence, and after reading the source, I don't understand what it's doing in the production section. From what I understand, the quote explains that there is a contrast between the harsh lyrics and the background beats that remind us of a ball dance. That would be more fitting in the next section, "Musical style", and I think explaining the idea in your own words would also be less confusing.
Rewrote in my own words Cattos💭 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Comments:
I'm missing a more precise/direct description of the album's theme in the lead section. You say the group "further developed  their exploration of..." etc., but that explains the content rather indirectly.
Done Cattos💭 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
The section "Musical style" starts on-topic and then veers off-topic as you explain the content of every track. I think this is valuable and very well written, but it doesn't fit into "Musical style". Either change the title of the section and create subsections, or place the descriptions of the tracks in a new section.
Done Cattos💭 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I still felt like the track interpretations didn't fit in "Musical Style" and placed it under a separate header, "track analysis". Within this section, I divided your text by paragraphs for each track - this lead to some paragraphs being only a sentence long, but I felt this was easier to read since each track was easier to find. Please feel free to review it and let me know if you don't agree. We can find a solution. Barbalalaika (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm personally not a big fan of one-sentence paragraphs - I generally find them a bit choppy to read and unnecessary since many album GAs follow this type of merged style. If a reader is looking for a specific track, they can use Ctrl+F to locate it, so I've kept the original paragraph structure. Cattos💭 04:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Very fair. I'm still unfamiliar with album articles, so I appreciate the comment. Barbalalaika (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Could you include a "Personnel" subsection with each participant in the development of the album and their role?
Done Cattos💭 20:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. You say the personnel is according to Maria Luiza Kfouri, and cited a website. The citation leads to the right place but seems to refer to an album by Novos Baianos. Can you double-check?
Oops.. I accidentally forgot to change the title for the citation since I took it from Acabou Chorare 04:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, I understand Maria Luiza Kfouri is a journalist, but her mention there is a bit confusing. Is she also the author of Discos do Brasil? Can you introduce her properly in that snippet so that readers know why you're citing her? Barbalalaika (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
I cut the name in the personnel. Cattos💭 04:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. 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): 
Comment: Since we are on English Wikipedia, have you tried looking for some (more) sources in English that could possibly substitute or complement some of the Brazilian sources? Currently there's only one from BBC News and one from Don Snowden.
My focus was not on checking if there were English sources, although the Pardue source from 33⅓ Brazil in the Bibliography is considered an English source, if you missed that one. Cattos💭 16:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah yes, there's indeed an English version. Thanks for pointing that out! Barbalalaika (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

C. It contains no original research: 
Comment: No original research, but (didn't find another place for it) I see you use the book "Racionais MC's" published by Companhia das Letras in 2018 as a source. Racionais wrote the book, so this is a primary source. Hopefully you can replace it in all passages where you use it?
@Barbalalaika: I've replaced all instances of the primary source, with and most of the citations being from scholarly publications. Cattos💭 20:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Great replacements. I put the BBC source back (along with your new Takahashi source) since it's in English and thus helpful for English speakers. I'll pass the article now. Barbalalaika (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Comment:
You get a tad bit off-topic here: "According to research by Datafolha, conducted at the time the lyrics were released, nearly half (48%) of the Black respondents had been searched by police. This abusive approach is suffered by a person simply because of their skin color, curiously always considered to be in a "suspicious attitude" - I like that you found a source contemporary to the album, but I'd stop at the first sentence.
Cut until first sentence Cattos💭 16:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Comment:
This was a very important album, were these the only reviews from serious sources you could find? Is there maybe something in the international scene?
Also, stylistic comment, but you introduce a positive review -> negative review -> another positive review (the single sentence from Lucas Brêda). I'd present the two positive reviews together, either before or after the negative one.
Done Cattos💭 16:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
I just double-checked for more international (English-speaking) reviews myself and found nothing. Updating to "pass". All that's left is my comment on Companhia das Letras as a primary source and we're good to go. Barbalalaika (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Comment: Are there any pictures of the band or of Mano Brown you could add? One picture added by the reviewer.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Comment: Please add an alt text to the thumbnail for visually impaired readers. Done by the reviewer.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Comment: @Cathodography: It's a lot of text, but I don't think anything I wrote is critical. You did a great job with this article. Once you address the points above, I'll happily give it a pass. Feel free to discuss anything you don't agree with, and I'm open for questions :) Barbalalaika (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Update 2025-10-26: The article was already in very good condition during the first review round and the nominator appropriately adressed all my questions and comments during the review process, such that I deem it fitting for GA status. Congratulations and thank you for the great colleboration, @Cathodography:! Barbalalaika (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Cathodography, I've changed the review status to "on hold". Please comment within 7 days (an acknowledgement of the review is fine), otherwise I'll fail the nomination for lack of activity. You'd then be welcome to resubmit it once you're available again. Barbalalaika (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey there, I've been really busy with schoolwork and tests. I'm really sorry for my inactivity, I'll try to respond to some of them today Cattos💭 16:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
No problem, really just wanted a reaction within a set time! You can take your time now that I know you're alive. Real life takes precedence. Barbalalaika (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)