Talk:Bad Romance/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Annalise (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article over the next couple of days.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "The song talks about exploring the joys of a bad romance while referencing Alfred Hitchcock films in some of the verses" is used in the lead and later on. I don't think that "The song talks about exploring the joys of a bad romance..." is an effective summary. It really doesn't tell us anything more than the title does. I also don't know that the Hitchcock references are really relevant enough to the song to deserve a mention in the lead.

   I rewrote the whole line. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I'm not sure what's going on in the Credits and Personnel section, but right now, it's sourced really awkwardly.

   Normally Credits and Personnel sections are not sourced at all, however if you feel that the sourcing could have been better, please suggest something. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

   I'd remove the citation, it's rather unnecessary. Like track listings for albums or cast for films, it's obvious where this information comes from, and it looks kind of unencyclopedic to have "Source:^[1]" hanging out. –Chase (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

   My view would be is that if you already have the track listings cited, then it would be appropriate to cite the credits also for the sake of consistency. –MuZemike 01:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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:

   The sections that discuss critical reception, of both the song and the music video, seem unrealistically positive. Surely there were some negative reviews?

   Its already there. "but lacking the immediate pull of some of Gaga's biggest hits to date." "single doesn't deviate far from the blueprint mapped out by those other hits, especially 'Poker Face', to which 'Bad Romance' bears a striking resemblance." --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

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):

   It would be great to have a few more images, but there are enough that I'm comfortable with it.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review by User:MuZemike

I'm taking over this GA review as it is clear that the previous reviewer has abandoned it.

Prose issues

• The song has since sold more than 700,000 copies in the region and is due to be Gaga's third single to be certified platinum in the UK. → Sounds a little wordy and ambiguous (was Gaga's 3rd single being certified platinum caused the song to sell more than 700K copies or the other way around?). Can you reword that so it makes more sense?

Removed as it was unsourced. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your expressing of chart positions (i.e. "number-one", "number two", "number fourteen", etc) is a bit off. Two things about that: first, either the hyphen in "number one" should be in all of them or none of them (for consistency); second, normally anything over twenty uses numerals per standard English usage and our MoS. Alternatively (though I don't see this used with similar articles, but I would think be fine) would be to replace all occurrences with #X - whichever you folks want to do.

Replaced with number where the numeral was > nine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Especially in the "Critical reception" section and the "Reception" subsection (of the "Music video" section), there are an awful lot of quotes that could possibly be paraphrased instead. (I understand that some won't be possible to do that, but for most of them they can be.)

Paraphrased the quotes wherever possible. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• The "Concept" and "Reception" subsections-paragraphs are a tad long and could each possibly be split into two paragraphs to make it easier for readers.

Shortened them and paragraphed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• The two paragraphs in the "Live performances" section seem a bit long. However, I don't know if they can be logically split after reading both of them. If they can't, then it's not that big a deal.

Shortened a lot. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

On hold pending the improvements above. I have some things IRL to tend to right now, but I'm finished prosewise and sourcing-wise up to the "Music video" section, so I'll pick that one up a little later. –MuZemike 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now finished going through the article. –MuZemike 01:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Passed – Everything looks good. –MuZemike 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)