Jump to content

Talk:Criminal (Ra.One song)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Σ (talk · contribs) 06:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing...Στc. 06:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate comment is that the article's length is a little short. There is no specific length requirement for GA, but the article must be broad in its coverage.
Lead
Looks OK, although it needs a copyedit and rectification of some MOS problems. See WP:MOSMUSIC.
Release
Looks fine, but needs a bit of expansion, copyedit, and MOS compliance.
Critical reception
It reads like an advertisement and needs less direct copy/pastes, more prose.
See also
Looks good.
References
Some of them need cleaning up with more information; publisher, consistent date formats, and the like.

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):
    In general, the article needs copyediting, less direct quotes, and compliance with WP:MOSMUSIC.
  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):
    Is there any available information? About the development of the song, for instance?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Critical reception section reads like a advertisement.
  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):
    Non-free use rationales need immediate attention, and the captions are.... vague, at most.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm afraid I have to fail this nomination. The article is a good start, but still has many issues that inhibit it from reaching GA. I suggest that you try to bring it up to B-class and have a peer review before another GA nomination, which I hope does succeed. Good luck. →Στc. 07:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]