Talk:1 Thing/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA and will add comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think you can justify two Fair use album covers of the same album. One needs to be removed.
  • More than happy to do so. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the references do not seem to be correctly formatted: e.g. DJ Vlad. Hot in Here. 2005 - I am not sure what this is.
  • It's a DVD titled Hot in Here, released in 2005. I'm pretty sure DJ Vlad self-published it, so there isn't any additional publisher info. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Some references do not seem to reference the article information. For example, how does reference 24 source the information in the sentence that precedes it?
  • The source is a DVD which indicates that Girls Aloud included performances of "1 Thing" on its tour. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 22 does not give authors, although authors are given in the article.
  • Added. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The song is influenced by go-go rhythms..." - is this referenced?
  • It's in the main article, reference number 3. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Despite being based on a Meters sample, the song belies a strong go-go influence." - I am not sure what this sentence is saying. It needs to be clearer.
  • I think the person who added that meant that although the Meters were a New Orleans funk group, not go-go, "1 Thing" borrows from go-go. I made that connection and added a comment by Harrison linking the two. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Quotes need to be directly referenced. It is not clear, when the reference comes later, whether it is referencing the quote or not. e.g. "Harrison said he "loved" the Meters and that "New Orleans music is very close to [that of] D.C. Go-Go, very percussive and chant-oriented. And Ziggy, he's crazy." He processed the way the breakdown could be "flipped", added a bongo drum, a cowbell, and a ride cymbal, and sent it to Amerie. According to Harrison, they wrote and finished the song in two to three hours.[2]" - this is referenced by one footnote at the end.
  • I added citations after the quotations there. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• "it consequently garnered much airplay across the country." - POV - it consequently gained airplay across the country, or something similar.
  • Reworded. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• "It received significant play" - need to specify what "significant" means as readers may interpret it differently.
• "The song was similarly successful in the British Isles" - not sure what this means.
  • Looks like you fixed that. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• ""1 Thing" was moderately successful" - another vague term - need to specify what "moderately" means.
  • Looks like you fixed that. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Allmusic described "1 Thing" as being "just as exciting" as "Oh, Calcutta!" for how it "[flails] all over the place with unbound joy".[11] - it is a little confusing how the quotes are used here, although I know what you mean. Perhaps it could be reworded to clarify.
• Per MOS:LINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking, you might consider whether all the states and countries that you have wikilinked need to be.
  • Delinked. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Its digital download and ringtone releases were each certified gold" is mentioned in the lead but not in the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is to be a summary of the article.
  • Added to the body, with reference. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Besides not being mentioned in the article, the statement "Its digital download and ringtone releases were each certified gold..." is not referenced. —Mattisse (Talk)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)