Talk:Womanizer (song)/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Background section, "The song was written and co-produced by Nikesha Briscoe and Rafael Akinyemi of production team", add "the" between "of" and "production", reads odd without it. Same section, "The song was supposed to premiere on September 23, 2008", replace "supposed" with "scheduled", a better fit. In the Reception section (music video), "It lost the later category to ... "Single Ladies", do you mean "later" with "latter"? In the Live performances section, "On December 15, 2008, she performed at Japanese music show Hey! Hey! Hey! Music Champ", the sentence is missing a "the".- Check.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Reception section, the Ann Powers review, the two hyphens should be changed to a spaced en-dash or unspace em-dash, for more on that go here. In the Live performances section, italicize both "The X Factor" and "Hey! Hey! Hey! Music Champ" as they are shows.- Check.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
Is Hypeful a reliable source?
- 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I adressed all the concerns and deleted the hypeful link. I think it's done. Thank you for reviewing the article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you did, and you're welcome for the review, just doing my part. Thank you to Xwomanizerx for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)