User talk:One-summer-day

GA review of Black horror

Hi One-summer-day, thankyou for your review Black horror. A concern was raised on the good article talk page that your review was insufficient, and I think they are correct. I can see a few basic errors still in the article (Its often involves the use of social..., Black horror films from this time also had their share of adaptions like..., Beloved was published in 1987), some use of jargon I would have flagged (e.g. "lived experiences" when experiences is sufficient) and I don't see any evidence of a spot-check, which is required under WP:GAN/I#R3. You can see what a spot check may look like in Talk:Masala y Maíz/GA1#Sources.

Would you be able to have another run through the article, identifying any issues, and show evidence of a spot check? If you need any assistance, ping me here or leave a note at WP:GAMENTOR. Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 09:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave Yes, I can give it another read through and add the spot check. To be honest, this is my first time doing a GA review, so thank you for being patient with me! One-summer-day (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave I've been looking at other reviews to get a better idea of how to improve mine and there seems to usually be a lot of back-and-forth between the reviewer and nominator over small stylistic comments that a reviewer has. What do you recommend in terms of the balance between fixing things myself versus flagging issues for discussion? Or should I fix things and then document all the changes I've made? One-summer-day (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries with making mistakes, everyone does starting out, and I'm glad you're getting involved in good article reviewing which can be a very rewarding opportunity to both learn and advise.

As to what to fix and what to raise, fix things yourself if you don't think the nominator would reasonably take issue, if you believe they will know why it is wrong, and if the issue is not pervasive (spelling mistakes, basic grammar, objectively incorrect dates etc) and otherwise raise them.

Most of the times I am raising something, it is because the meaning is ambiguous, because I thought the claim was somewhat subjective or dubious and I checked the source, or if I felt the text didn't adequately explain to the reader what something was. If you would like, I can take a sweep through Black horror and point out things I would have raised after you go through again? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be super helpful! I have finished the review and with the exception of one missing reference for a quote, I think it should pass. I had a fair number of comments, but I think in terms of GA criteria, the article should pass (now that I've made small corrections like typos and incorrect years, as you pointed out). The nominator will look over the review later this week. Talk:Black horror/GA1 One-summer-day (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. If I don't make it over there before you think the article is ready, pass it, and I'll leave some comments on the talk page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 06:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]