Talk:(I Can't Make It) Another Day/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I can see straight away that this is very good article, I'll come back in a few minutes with a few comments.

Okay, Checklinks shows no dead links, which is great. The images are fine and so is the external link. No blogs or unreliable sites are used for refs, which is also great.

Just a few things -

In the Leak and music section:

• Can the four refs that are together be split up at all, maybe two of them could be moved up. A ref after - A 90-second snippet of a song called "Another Day" was leaked onto the video sharing website YouTube in January 2010, would be good.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

References:

• The works should all be linked (or delinked)

I've delinked all the works and publishers from references. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Lack of publishers - BBC News is published by the BBC, Rolling Stone by Jann Wenner and so on.

I think I've corrected all of the publishers. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to pass this as soon as the above have been fixed. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 16:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just to offer my second opinion, I second everything June said. You've got no dab links which is good to see. The publishers are not an absolute necessity for GA, but it's useful information. As with the works, all should be linked or delinked but be careful not to mix up owners and publishers as is easily done, though I don't see that happening here so far. Once those are fixed, I'd be happy to rubber stamp the pass. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hold the press, I've just found something! Nothing major, though.
  • Do you mean to use subsequently? It generally means "as a result of" though it doesn't have to.

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • "The passing" would appear to clash with WP:EUPHEMISM

 Fixed. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Does it really matter in this article which website broke the story first?

Listing who broke the story first is not significant to this article, but I do not think it's undue weight either. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • "believed to have originated from one of his fansites or TMZ.com"- believed by whom? That statement is also unattributed so I'm tempted to tag it with {{fact}} or {{By whom}} but I won't for now

 Fixed Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • There is a very slight inclination to portray Sony as the bad guy for trying to take the song down

I've read the sentences that involve Sony Music in the article multiple times and I do not see any weasel wording or bias-ness. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 18:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • With the relatively recent posthumous record deal, is it known if this will ever be released?

No reliable sources have stated that Sony has planned to release the song with any of Jackson's upcoming posthumous albums. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, nothing major and most of that is quite pedantic, but worth looking at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK then. I'm more than happy with this so I should think June will pass it assuming she hasn't spotted anything. Great work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me, so I'm happy to pass this. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)