Talk:At My Most Beautiful/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JayJay (talk · contribs) 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I will start the review shortly.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The LEAD is too short and needs to adequately summarize the whole article. - Asking for Second Opinion

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #13 is not a reliable source and not even cited correctly. In addition to that many of the information relies heavily on the books cited. -Asking for second opinion

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article needs to be expanded much more to attain an Good Article status - Asking for second opinion

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I'm not entirely convinced the article keeps a neutral point. - Asking for Second Opinion

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm asking for second opinion on some things JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

   After taking a look at Aircorn's comments I believe this article meets GA Criteria. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Do you want a second opinion on the whole article or there some particular aspects you are uncertain of. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The ones where there are question marks next to them like the Neutral point of view, reliable sources. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to work with any comments raised to help improve the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lead - I like the lead. Concise, but gives agood overview covering the main points.
• Referencing - 13 is fine for the information it supports and unfortunately given the nature of the link it can't be linked to directly. The current citational style is fine, and I have used something similar before. Idon't understand the other objection. The information should relie on the books cited.
• Neutrality - This sentence sums up the reception "Though the song was a moderate hit, its success failed to stimulate sales of Up, which by 1999 had sold a relatively low three million copies worldwide." It is very neutral in my opinion. Not seeing anything else that triggers any POV flags.
• Broadness - This can be a tricky one. It does seem short, but it is an article on a song and to be perfectly honest most song articles I see here go out of the way to add every little bit of detail, making them hard to read and most likely fall outside the focus criteria. I think it is fine, we only require articles to caover the main points and I can't think of anything missing.

I will add some final comments. The biggest issue is going to be verifing the sources as they are mostly books. I don't really see anything that rings false and the stlye of writing does not suggest copyright infringments have occured. You could ask for the wording of the source used for the last sentence (quoted in nuetrality above) just to cover your bases as it is probably the closest to a challengable statement in the article. There is a possible concern with notability, but since it has charted it is most likely notable. THis is not a GA criteria anyway. I would have no problem passing it in its current state.

P.S. Is there a reason the notes are below the references? The convention I have seen in most articles is th other way around. AIRcorn (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I do that is because I think it's more logical to list the full references before the abbreviated footnotes, so people know what's being referred to in the first place. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)