Talk:Do the Bartman/GA1

GA Review

One should add that this was also a #5 in germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.164.246.155 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article against the GA criteria. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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:

OK. The article seems a gross violations of MOS on a large scale. I did not even move beyond the lead that I found them.

1. Online sources are not supposed to be italicized.

 Done I've removed the italics from The Daily Vault in the reception section. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. There is no alt text for the images.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Unsourced sales.

 Done I've sourced the sales of the single from the United Kingdom's BPI. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's still not correct. The BPI certification link talks about shipement not actual sales. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded mention of the songs UK certification to "shipments". Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. No usage of en-dash.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. A number of repeated references, especially 28-36.

I believe that I've corrected this problem, can you check to make sure I fixed all the references? Thanks Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. You need to replace all the Hung Medien references with a single one as it's the same content repeated in all of them. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. A number of times procession is added, however, bigger markets like Australia and Norway are left for no reason. Why?

I have not been able to locate all of the songs chart procession and succession in countries where it peaked at number one, so I've instead removed the section altogether. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has the lists. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've just added the chart procession and succession to Australia and Norway. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The date formatting for Australia is incorrect. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "Do The Bartman" sold half a million copies and was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry on February 1, 1991." – This is so wrong. The BPI doesnot certify on sales, it certifies on shipments. And BPI gold certification is for 400K copies.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. There is a case of huge WP:OVERLINK happening. One example, ref no 8. You are citing it to BBC News while formatting as BBC.co.uk which is wrong. Same with EW.com, News.BBC.co.uk, BPI.co.uk etc etc.

 Done I believe I've corrected this problem, if I missed any references please let me know. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Sp mistakes at EL.

Huh? I do not understand that sentence. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 12:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling mistake in external links section is what the shorthand meant. I've now fixed it. Pyrrhus16 15:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. File:DotheBartman.png shouldn't be more than 300x300 for passing wP:NFCC.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 11:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please correct these mistakes so that I can actually proceed to the article. I am giving concerned editor/s 3 days for it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Online sources are not supposed to be italicized. A number of them are still left. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any online sources that are in italics. Could you cite the section(s) that they are in? Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. The title of the section "Reception". I beleive Reception implies both critical and commercial performance, but this section contains only the critical ones. Hence you can rename it as "Critical reception". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hung Medien is left still. I believe you did a similar change for the Hung Medien in "Say Say Say". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I corrected the problem, but I left ref. 19 because it sources the songs weeks at number one in that country. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 04:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I'm passing this article now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 10:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)