Talk:Papers (song)

Latest comment: 14 years ago by SMasters in topic GA Review
Good articlePapers (song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 12, 2010Articles for deletionKept
April 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Papers (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

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:  

Comments:

  • "Buzz single" is industry jargon and should be explained. Fixed
  • Sean Garrett is mentioned twice in the second paragraph. Fixed, I think. He was mentioned twice because the last paragraph deals mostly with composition but techincally it is still background information, so I didn't split it. However I removed his first name from the second mentioning.
This is the sentence I'm referring to (second paragraph): "It was written by Usher, Sean Garrett, Alonzo Mathis, Sean Garrett and Zaytoven, and was produced by the latter two." -- S Masters (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Other than the above, the article has no major issues.

Oops, I thought you mean second paragraph of Background. Fixed now! Candyo32 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Summary: Thank you for all the fixes. I am confident that the article now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as such. -- S Masters (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply