Jump to content

Talk:22 (Lily Allen song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee22 (Lily Allen song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk: 22 (Lily Allen song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version checked

Well-written: Fail

  • The lead needs to summarise the whole article, it doesn't as parts 'her third consecutive top twenty hit' are not in the article nor are point coverage in the infobox 'released' where no prose is found.
  • The background section is missing much of the lead 'from her second studio album' would naturally have coverage here but it is missing.
  • The music sample would logically go in a 'Music composition' section rather then critical review.
  • Swizerland is a mispelling.

Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail

  • Missing WP:RS for release date, B-side, Genre, Label, single etc Missing for track listings and credits sections.
  • The billboard link contains nothings about a Eurochart.

Broad in its coverage: Pass

  • Nothing appears missing although not much depth in places.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: Pass

  • I believe that the article is presented in a neutral tone.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pass

  • The article is stable and there is a little edit-warring.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why was 22 (song) failed if I didn't even get a chance to fix the problems? I am supposed to be given 7 days. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It fails part 3 of the "quick-fail criteria" of How to review an article, having many unreferenced parts. As Does an article have to be on hold only for 7 days? says "No" and "GA aims to achieve the best outcome for the encyclopedia using the reviewing resources available.", as you likely know there is quite a backlog and I don't see it productive use of 'reviewing resources' working through an article that is quite some way from passing GA. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Although I disagree with the quick fail, I must say the article doesn't meet the GA criteria and SunCreator raises some valid points, though alt text isn't required for GA. I'd suggest you work on these issues, which would likely take more than a week to fix anyway, and renominate it when it's ready. I'd be happy to give it a fast track review when these issues have been fixed. I;d suggest taking a look at The Climb (song) to give you some idea of what a song GA looks like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking from Good article criteria section (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines and the alt text guideline is a part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. While I wouldn't view lack of alt text as a GA failure, pointing it out as an issue is appropriate. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. Personally, I'd say, it would have done no harm to have left it on hold for a week or so, but the decision is entirely up to the reviewer so it's nothing against you. As for the alt, pointing out an issue certainly is appropriate and I'm glad you took the time to provide a review and for the MoS, the criterion says "...for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation", of which ALT is not a part, but that's a technicality.
As I said above, I'd be happy to provide a fast-track review should it be renominated after the issues have been addressed since there's no doubting it doesn't yet meet the criteria. Of course, I'll defer to you if you want to review it yourself if/when it's renominated and the issues fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the MOS criterion, I hadn't thought about that. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 22 (Lily Allen song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:22_(Lily_Allen_song)&oldid=1196975734"