Talk:Alicia Keys/GA2

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.

---

GA Reassessment

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

Reasessment

Ok. This article was listed as a GA back in 2009 and searching through the listed version, I found it is substantially changed from this. So, I'll re-review the article, since I believe it doesn't meet the GA criteria anymore. —Hahc21 07:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's start.

Point 1(a): Prose is clear and concise?

No. Some sections read entirely like a summary of fact after fact instead of following a flow over the matter. Also, I see many misspellings (example, use of Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard Hot 100). Additionally, sentences doesn't follow and order. As an example, on the section "Film debut and As I Am", the information regarding the film and singles is completely mixed and with no order. I recommend to get the article copyedited. Some paragraphs are difficult to read, since they're just an indiscriminate bulk of information.

Point 1(b): Complies with MoS specific guidelines

Almost. Lead is not meeting the guideline. Usually, it may be as this: P1 introduces the artists, itrs roots, family, genre styles, start year, etc. P2 and P3 may talk about the success of the artists, songwriting, history, etc. And P4 should talk about awards and accolades, lists, wealth and so on. Of course, it can be ordered as many other forms, but ordered. As of what I see, the lead doesn't do this. It barely speaks about the filmography of her, doesn't mention nothing about the philantrophy, as well as her marriage with Swizz Beatz and her son, Egypt, and other things.

Point 2(a): Provides references to all sources of information.

Almost. Some references are not reliable, even usable. As an example, Ref No.123 points to Google News (ftw?) and ref No.127 points to SoundCloud, and it supposely supports the fact that "New Day" will be on her next album.

Point 2(b): Provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics...

Almost. As an example, "The Element of Freedom, marriage and motherhood" has only two sources for a very long paragraph. And some other sections goes this way. So, it doesn't meet this criteria. Close but not yet.

Points 2(c): No OR

No. As it fails 2(b), it is likely to contain original research.

Point 3(a): Broad in coverage

Yes. The article is very broad on covering the details of her life.

Point 3(b): Stays focused on the topic...

No. It goes into very needless details, such as pointing every chart peak for all of her singles. That information is better suitable for her discography and not in here.

Point 4: Neutrality.

I'm pretty sure it's neutral. I haven't found a sentence to make an example of the opposite.

Point 5: Stable

Yup.

Point 6(a): NFCC

Maybe. The sample of "If I Ain't Go You" is 128Kbps. It should be 64Kbps per guideline. "Fallin'" sample is of 164Kbps. All images are from Commons.

Points 6(b): Suitable captions, relevancy

All are relevant, but the captions are all "Keys performing on" type, which doesn't add nothing for the article. So, it doesn't meet this criteria for me.

Verdict

Result: Delisted.

I love Alicia Keys, but this article doesn't meet the criteria anymore. It would need a copyedit and a peer review to reach it's status again, alongside an extensive work to cut all needless information from it. Regards. —Hahc21 07:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.