Jump to content

Talk:Bad Girl (Confessions of a Shopaholic song)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1

[edit]

Ok, i've started reviewing the article. I'll be reviewing it for the next 7 days, so i'll give my verdict by Friday May 11th, 2012. --Hahc21 (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

[edit]

I've roughly checked the reference, syntax and semantics, but still have the issue about the consensus in mind. I'll give it a few days to decide what i'll do with it. I haven't received no response from the contributors of the article as of May 6. I wrote on their talk pages to see if they take a look at the page. --Hahc21 (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to move was closed as there was no clear consensus. Seeing as how more sources discuss Rihanna and Chris Brown's version and they had a bigger contribution towards the production of the song, I think keeping it as is is not a bad idea. The discussion can always be reinitiated after the article passes as a GA. The decision of this GAN remains up to you however. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really appreciate that both of you guys answered me the question. I will continue with the review, i think that if it was moved without permission or consensus, then i can move on with it and make my review. Please be in touch! and thanks! --Hahc21 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 3

[edit]

Round 4

[edit]

Section scan:

  • Lead section:
    • "Hollywood Records' decision to not include Rihanna and Brown's version was criticized by Ryan Brockington for the New York Post. But Michael Quinn for BBC Music was complimentary of The Pussycat Dolls cover." what if we make these two sentences as only one?
    Done Aaron You Da One
  • Background and development
    • Checked
  • Composition
    • Checked
  • Reception
    • Checked
  • Charts
    • Checked

Reference scan: I verified all references and everything is ok. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Round 5

[edit]

Another day, another round.

  • Well, i've red the article four times in a row and i believe it's ready. I've comprehensively checked all sections and i found no issues on everyone of them. I'll wait for te contributors to see if they want to comment something to make my final read and give my decision. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok i found some minor issues:
  • Composition and lyrics
      1. "Producer of the song, Polow da Don, stated..." - shouldn't that be "The producer...."?
        1. Then it would read "The producer of the song...", changed reworded it. Aaron You Da One
      1. "stated in his interview with MTV News that Rihanna vocal performance was "unique"..." - shound't that be "that Rihanna's vocal performance..."?
      1. "saying how Brown delivered his rap with a high amount of energy and conviction." - wouldn't that be "deliveres his rap verses..."?
      1. "Rihanna's vocals "meshed" with the lyrics perfectly." - I think it should be better written as "Rihanna's vocals "meshed" perfectly with the lyrics."

After those minor issues are fixed or resolved, i'll make my final read. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final round

[edit]

OK, now i think almost has been done. I'm ready to give my verdict.

The verdict

[edit]
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):
  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:

Final comments:This article was already in good shape at the beginning of the review. Only minor details were handled during the review process, like some grammas corrections, adding an image, a music sample. Finally, it is ready and it passes all the criteria. So, it is promoted.

Another comment: I was reading the move request and i don't get it yet. What a stupid proposal? Who the hell was this user? hey i'm not insulting him but please, it is a ridiculous idea. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. Aaron You Da One 11:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.