Talk:Everyone Nose (All the Girls Standing in the Line for the Bathroom)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everyone Nose (All the Girls Standing in the Line for the Bathroom)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The "Critical reception" section could almost be a list: Reviewer A said "___". Reviewer B said "___". Etc. The only thing you've done is grouped them into good and bad reviews. It would work better if you made statements about trends in the reviews and then backed them up with quotes; tell the story of the critical reception, as it were. (See Lions (album) for an example of how I did it.) If you have access to Factiva or LexisNexis (try your university or local library), you'll find about another fifty reviews of the song.
   • The "Music video" section needs an introductory sentence and a description of the video's concept.
     • That's better, but I thought T.A.G. was a person until I checked the reference. Maybe change to "Williams contacted the T.A.G. ad agency...". Also, you now have three consecutive sentences that begin with "The video". —Zeagler (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed. DiverseMentality 20:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   • "The song produced a remix featuring Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, and Pusha T and was available as an iTunes and Zune Marketplace bonus track." – 'produced a remix ... that was available', right? And available with what? The purchase of Seeing Sounds?
     • Understand that what's called the bonus track is the original version of the song unless "and" is changed to "that". I'll fix this myself. —Zeagler (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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):

   • I know very little about the song/recording itself after reading this article, except for its lyrical bent. Details about the recording session would be helpful. (Again, consult Factiva or LexisNexis if you've exhausted all your online sources.) And if no description of the song can be found from someone directly involved in its creation, some general descriptions from critics would be fine.
     • Nice job with the additions here. Only problem is that the "Andrew Coleman..." sentence is not a complete one. —Zeagler (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Fixed this as well. DiverseMentality 20:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • "The song was generally well-received by critics despite its subject of cocaine use." – This implies a view that lyrics revolving around drug use should beget poor reviews.

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:

Covering the missing 'major aspects' will be difficult, and rewriting the "Critical reception" section won't be trivial...so I'll give you as much time as you need so long as progress is being made. —Zeagler (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've taken care of everything. If not, I'll fix it. DiverseMentality 22:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's happened in a few days...did you get the email I sent? —Zeagler (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it late last night (I rarely use that email anymore). I'll get around to it later today or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. DiverseMentality 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've copy-edit the section. Hopefully it seems less like a list now. DiverseMentality 22:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll do. Passed. —Zeagler (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)