Talk:Lena Meyer-Landrut/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 15:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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):

   Her mother's and father's names?

   "Despite having had no professional singing experience,[15]" - a similar statement was written already

   You may want to mention that Raab also participated at ESC

   "with all but one reaching their peak chart position.[18][19][20][21]" - I would write: "with all but one topping the respective chart". What was the other one not peaking the #1?

   "US American" - "American" (yes, in Germany we would say otherwise ;))

   "all three of the songs performed by her in the final" - all of her final songs...

   "reaching positions number one" - suggest removal of "positions"

   "were first released in Germany in 1959.[5] " - introduced, maybe?

   ""Satellite" was eligible to be certified gold after the first week and platinum after the fourth week of its release.[27][28] " - why not just "was certified..."?

   Link German albums chart to Media Control Charts

   Ditto for Austrian albums chart to Ö3 Austria Top 40

   Ditto for Swiss albums chart to Swiss Music Charts

   "would enjoy a singing or an acting career,[12]" - would enjoy starting a... maybe?

   Link Loreen

   "received the maximum 12 points nine times and received points from all but five countries.[4]" - received nine times the maximum 12 points and...

   Last paragraph of "2010–2011 " unreferenced

   "Meyer-Landrut attempted to defend her title in the 2011 Eurovision Song Contest.[9] She was the third winner to do so, and the first in over 50 years.[49]" - this should be moved after the "Unser Song für Deutschland" final

   Cure's song is a dablink in Appearances on Unser Star für Oslo

   I fixed it myself

   Awards section uncited

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   [1] does not seem to be reliable. For such an extroverted person you can easily find better sources which describe her personality.

   Ref 37: You should state the language

   {{de icon}} should be replaced with the language paramter in cite templates. Also, use consistent referencing style.

   Ref 54 and 55 are incomplete

   11 dead links, see [2]

   IMDB is unreliable

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):

   Infobox picture: Source leads to [3]

• I'm not the user who nominated this article for GA review. However I do have the article on my watchlist. In response to this particular image issue, the site you quoted does state that the license for the images has "some rights reserved", and links to this creative commons disclaimer for that particular image, which states it can be reused under CC-SA with the correct attribution. Wesley Mouse 23:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Upon viewing the image at commons, the file has been approved by an administrator on May 30, 2010 and correctly attributed, thus making the image OK for usage on articles. Wesley Mouse 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• This may be true, but the source led to a different picture. I corrected it accordingly.

1. Overall: Fix the initial issues before I resume.--GoP_T^C_N 10:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for your feedback, GreatOrangePumpkin! I implemented most of it. Unfortunately I was not logged in for one edit and edited as IP 84.61.210.142. I will look at the references and dead links soon. I didn't change "reaching their peak chart position" because the songs didn't go to no. 1 in the singles chart but just reached the best position they had ever reached individually (i.e. a better position than they reached before). The one for which this wasn't the case was Foundations. I added this info. Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed/replaced all of the dead links now, added some new references, removed claims that could no longer be referenced and generally did a big cleanup of the whole references, further reading and external links sections to comply with wikipedia standards. I think this is article is very well referenced now. All of the reviewer's suggestions should be implemented now. Janfrie1988 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the link in the description box of the infobox picture. The only (minor) issue is that there should be generally no sources in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE), but otherwise it is a very good article. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And forgot to say that the awards section should be referenced.--GoP_T^C_N 20:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)