Talk:Climax (song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Till (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article, something I've only done 6 times before... and long ago.

The lyrics section needs work. It just has statements followed by quotes that have been copied-and-pasted. Not interesting to read.

Paraphrased a bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The release and reception section needs rearrangment, as we have sentences such as a remix content in June, whereas the next paragraph goes to talk about something that happened in March. Also remember to add '2012' after the month (June).

Removed trivial "remix" bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response --> link sci-fi? And there is (slight) repetition of 'commented' and 'called' etc.

Done. Replaced w/synonyms for those. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that the music video section can be expanded more than that. Also, why use a quote to describe the events? Why not just paraphrase. And a screenshot would be nice.

Paraphrased. There was a screenshot from another editor, but that was removed not too long ago for copyright problems. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with File:Usher Climax screenshot.jpg Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That live performances section reads much like a narrative. It needs a more encyclopaedic tone.

Revised narrative bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be fixed. Some are missing publishers

Periodicals such as newspapers and journals/magazines dont normally have publishers in the citations (Template:Citation#Publisher). Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I went through and fixed all the references myself. Till 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Digital Spy, but EW, Billboard, The Guardian, and NME are periodicals. Dan56 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where does it say on the page that publishers can't be included?~~ Nevermind, found it. Still, it took very long to fix those references, ~~I have no idea why you reverted them~~ and reverting them seems unnecessary. Till 03:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes at FA stressed it at one of my FANs not too long ago, so I'm trying to be consistent with that. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is quite a well-written article, especially the first two (or so) sections, they were a very good read. Just some fixes that need addressing before it's passed. Till 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. The first two were the only ones I really contributed/wrote to this article. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. Till 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]