Talk:God Level

God Level has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 13, 2026. (Reviewed version).

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

United States: Music Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Music portal This article is supported by WikiProject American music.

GA review

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Passed. _{User:RTSthestardust (Talk) (Edits)} 15:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:God Level/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Wackistan (talk · contribs) 22:02, 11 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm RTSthestardust, and it's amazing you finally nominated the article for GA-status. I'll give you some notes and a criteria whenever I'm done. RTSthestardust (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Congrats @Wackistan, you have passed the article! This GA sees sharks in the water. - RTSthestardust (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Recommendation

Archive all sources to prevent link rot
An image or two will help. I'll add them after passing this nomination.

GA Criteria Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here
	2b. 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).	It contains no original research.; I also recommend archiving sources to prevent link rot.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 13.8%, which is great
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The song's lead, background, promotion, composition, critical reception, and personnel are well-detailed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very consistent, with no distracting issues spotted
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Your percentage takes nearly the whole authorship of the article. Very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only the non-free sample, which carries a proper source and rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Sample features a good caption.
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic