Talk:Call the Police (G Girls song)/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Sunshineisles2 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Any information on the when and where of its recording would be nice.

Not done Sorry, can't find any information about that.

A higher-resolution image should be obtained, if possible.

Lead

recorded by Romanian female recording artists Alexandra Stan, Antonia, Inna and Lori, forming the band G Girls. — Using the word "forming" in this context is awkward.

Done

It was released for digital download on 14 June 2016 needs a source. Also, "released for" is a bit clunky.

Done

Written by Eric Turner and Julimar Santos Oliveira Neponunceno, while produced by Marcel Botezan and Sebastian Barac — "while produced" does not make sense in this context.

Done

Music critics described "Call the Police" as an eurodance song incorporating "Romanian music dance vibe" — Who said this?

Going too much in detail in lead isn't a big deal, so an overall "music critics" is allowed here

I still feel it is detrimental to have unsourced quotations. It should still be a point to revise.

being "catchy" — Who said this?

Same

but also comparing it to the solo works of Inna — Who compared it and how?

Same

A music video for the single was shot by Roman Burlaca — How do you know this?

Cited in "Music video" section; there's no ref to be used in the lead

Reception and composition

No information on composition, only reception. This section should be renamed.

Done

Many of these quotes are from non-notable publications.

Sorry, can't find others

Audio clip is useful, however.

Promotion

Too much plain synopsis, very few production notes. Expand the text or reduce to the small reference in the lead.

Done Changed section to "music video", thus resulting the synopsis here as useful. Regarding the production, I couldn't get enough information.

Track listing

There are no notable remixes or alternate version, is this absolutely necessary? You should either find some or delete the section.

Not done There needn't be remixes of a song to add a "track listing" section; this is a standard used by Wikipedia also if the song wasn't accompanied by any type of additional material.

Sorry, wasn't aware of the exact details of this. I stand corrected.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

Hair stylists, make-up, etc., refer to the video, and not the single. This section is typically used to credit the musicians.

Done Split the section into two sub-sections

References

The same source title ("iTunes store") is used in citations 8–12, and looks insanely repetitive. It would be a good idea to differentiate ("iTunes Store Germany", "iTunes Store Denmark"), etc.

Done

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Final thoughts

Article is not even close to GA criteria at this current stage. Too little information, poorly sourced from obscure sources, and very awkwardly worded throughout. There is the idea of a Good Article in here, but it's just not ready right now.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: Responded to all your comments. Thank you for the review. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your edits. The article is in much better shape now that we have gone over it, I feel, but it is still not at the stage where it could be promoted to GA. There is still a need for a better text review, so that it flows more naturally. I see on your talk page that you aren't a native English speaker. Your writing is certainly more excellent than I could have done in a foreign language, but I still think you should have a native speaker/writer have a look. My schedule is a bit jammed for the next couple of weeks, but otherwise I would be happy to help at some point in the future. I'm going to close this nomination now, if that's alright with you, but this is certainly an article which will benefit immensely from more revisions, and could be GA someday soon. Take care! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2016 (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.