Talk:My Own Worst Enemy (song)/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I will post a more-complete review in a couple of days, but in the meantime there are several [citation needed] tags scattered around the article, especially after direct quotations. These will need to be resolved before this article could achieve GA status. –Grondemar 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The [citation needed] is now gone. Statik N (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I am going to be travelling this weekend, so I will complete the review early next week. –Grondemar 06:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this! I reviewed the article and have the following concerns that need to be addressed before the review could be passed:
- In the lead: "The song was only moderately successful at first... It later achieved mainstream success...". Per the Commercial performance section, there appears to be only five weeks between "at first" and "later". I would have expected a period of months or years rather than weeks from that kind of description.
- What makes Musicianguide.com a reliable source? You're using it to support direct quotes.
- What makes Musicnotes.com a reliable source?
- I know Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. I'd recommend removing the sentence this source is supporting as it does not add much to the article.
- I found this article incredibly hard to read, because so much of it is either direct quote after direct quote, or a long list of chart placings. This article needs expansion with more prose to fill in the space between the quotes and placings.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
As I believe the article requires significant work, I feel I have no choice but to 
fail the review at this time. I apologize for the inconvenience. –Grondemar 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)