Jump to content

Talk:...Baby One More Time/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · count) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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):
  • Lead section could be shortened to two paragraphs, as WP:Manual of Style Length lists articles with between 15,000-30,000 characters as 'two or three paragraphs', and this only has 25,000 by my count.
  • The second sentence confused me, as the label 'studio album of the same name' is unclear whether it is named after Spears or the song until one goes to the link.
  • The section of the lede with the line 'Later, in 2010, the music video for "...Baby One More Time" was voted the third most influential video in the history of pop music' is unclear as to who or what labeled the song as such, and the word 'Later' could just be omitted entirely.
  • The lede says the song peaked at No. 1 in every country it charted, but the source used later in the article only says that for European countries.
  • Solid prose, only found one error; a comma should be added between 'Airplay' and 'peaking' in this phrase: '...becoming her first top ten hit on the Hot 100 Airplay peaking at number eight.'
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • The quality of the sources is indisputable; the issue is with the application of them.
  • Large portions of the 'Background' section are unsourced.
  • Direct quotes are not sourced with an inline citation in the Sputnikmusic review and NME review sentences, although one is provided at the end of the each; this can be corrected by adding an inline citation after each quote, even in the middle of a sentence.
  • 'Frequently listed in best songs listings' is unsourced, could be counted as OR.
  • Several sentences could be backed up by a reliable source that is included later, but aren't.
  • The bit about the song topping the Singles Sales chart for four weeks is unsourced, and the word 'solid' could be counted as OR.
  • The section reading 'On MTV Latin America the video came in at number seven of "The Most MTV-like Videos" and at number three on "The Top 100 Pop Videos" only after Madonna's "Like a Virgin" and Michael Jackson's "Billie Jean"' is unsourced.
  • The bit saying '"...Baby One More Time" has been performed on every Spears tour since its release', while almost undeniably accurate, is unsourced.
  • In general, the 'Live Performances' section has many unsourced sentences.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    With the possible exception of the large 'Cover versions and samples' section, coverage is both broad and on topic.
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No issues here
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issues with edit warring as of the time of this review. Stable article.
  4. 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):
    Great use of images and audio sample.
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The prose is excellent and almost everything is good. However, there are some very pressing issues on both sourcing and the lede. I think most of the sourcing issues can be fixed by sourcing most sentences with the very, very reliable sources this article possesses. The lede needs a bit of clearing up on the video issue I have stated above.

Overall, this is a solid article, and certainly B-class. However, the application of sources is spotty at best in many parts of the article, and there are some minor issues with the lede. Until these are corrected, I cannot pass this article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed every issue you noted. Take a look. Also, I'll leave the lead (or lede) with three paragraphs. There is enough info to be splited in three, also, the WP:Manual of Style Length says the article can have two or three. - Saulo Talk to Me 23:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues appear to be fixes, do I am passing this. Great job! Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:...Baby_One_More_Time/GA1&oldid=1242692200"