Talk:Hummingbird Heartbeat/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Till (talk · contribs) 07:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA Criteria

• taken from her second mainstream studio album Teenage Dream (2010) --> it's her third studio album, let's not beat around the bush.

 Done

• Christopher "Tricky" Stewart; with the latter --> incorrect use of semi-colon

 Done

• songs --> song's

 Done

• The song was inspired by --> repetition of 'the song' from previous sentence, and is name is Russell not Russel.

 Done

• Link music critics

 Done

• ..many of which --> many of whom

 Done

• ..peaking at 124, respectively --> 'respectively'? Seriously?

 Not done I don't really see the problem, it finishes the sentence smoothly. Do you have any suggestions of what to change it to?

You don't see the problem? 'Respectively' is used when referring to two or more items, in this case there is only one chart position of South Korea.

• According to digital sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Sony-ATV Music Publishing --> unnecessary
• MTV News should NOT be in italics
• The lead sentence of the reception section needs a bit of a copyedit.
• As said before, 'the song' is a bit repetitive.
• ..said the song fit well with the original --> fit?
• ..and if released as a single, would help Perry be the only artist with six number-one singles on the Billboard Hot 100 --> I don't find this necessary here, it's just a bit out of place
• Why is there no mention of the song charting?
• About.com and MTV News should not be in italics
• Ref #10, Capitol Records does not belong there. It should be iTunes Store and Apple Inc.
• Why is there no mention in the article's body that the song was inspired by Russell Brand?
• The article is ABSOLUTELY NOT broad in its coverage.

Overall

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):

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:

This is an extremely short article. On hold to see if some serious improvements can be made. Till 07:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As some of the issues haven't been addressed in the 8-day period, including a decent expansion, I'm failing this GAN. The article can be renominated at any time but I would suggest fixing these issues. Thanks. Till 00:44, 17 August 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.