# Talk:Pink Venom

I've a started a discussion at WikiProject Korea over the usage of Billboard's Hits of the World – South Korea Songs. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 07:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink Venom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Nkon21 (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewing!


### Comments
#### Background and release
"On July 31, YG Entertainment officially released the album trailer video" the name of the album could be worked in here; currently it's not mentioned outside the lead
"On August 10, two sets of individual member teaser posters were posted to Blackpink's official social media accounts" I think it would be good to specify that the posters are promoting “Pink Venom” rather than the album, since the latter’s promotion is also talked about in the previous paragraph
url-status=live should be added to [1], [3], and [4]
Spotchecks: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (albeit with all Korean-language ones checked with translation)


#### Composition and lyrics
Add url-access=subscription to [17]
Spotchecks: [16], [18], [19], [20]


#### Critical reception
No problems here!
Spotchecks: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]


#### Accolades
For Best Partnership or Collaboration, Features (Social), shouldn’t the PinkVenomChallenge specifically be listed as recipient?
Spotchecks: [45], [51], [55], [57]


#### Commercial performance
“most-streamed song by a female artist in a single day in 2022, with 10.79 million streams” not seeing the stream count in the Billboard source
“first song by a female K-pop artist to top Spotify's Global Top Songs chart” not seeing this part in the source
Link “Oricon chart” to Oricon Singles Chart
“Billboard Japan Hot 100” should be “Billboard Japan Hot 100”
Spotchecks: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]


#### Music video
Add url-status=live to [104]
“geomungo” is previously linked in the composition section
“vampire” doesn’t need to be linked
Spotchecks: [100], [101], [103], [104]


#### Promotion and live performances
No comments
Spotchecks: [115], [116], [117]


#### Credits and personnel
A source should be added here since there’s names not referenced in the Composition or background sections


#### Charts, certifications, release history
No comments


#### Lead and infobox
The infobox image could use an alt text
The cover doesn't have white edges so a border isn't needed


### Checklist
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: 
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Looks good for the most part, but I had a few notes above. Nothing unfixable of course
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): 
Apart from the credits section, all looks good
C. It contains no original research: 
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Critic commentary relies a bit much on quotations for my liking, but it's not going to hold it back from GA. These quotations is about everything detected by Earwig.
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): 
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Last major edit was on February 29, the day of nomination. There have been revisions but seems generally stable
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: 
Images have fair use or are under creative commons.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Alt needed for the infobox cover, otherwise all good.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Really great and high-quality article. I had some comments but all should be relatively easy to fix. Don't see any reason this shouldn't be able to pass. IanTEB (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Done with all, thanks for the review! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Promoted! Great work! IanTEB (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)