Talk:Dinosaur (Kesha 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: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Hi again! Second time i review one of your articles. --Hahc21 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overview

Well, as every article you nominate, good prose, order and and good structure are always present. I've already read the article about two days ago and, as the other two i'm reviewing are on hold, i'll work on this in the meantime.

Round 1

Lead: Good.

Writing and inspiration:

• "Instruments for the song were provided by all three composers".

1. This statement says that instruments (musical devices) were provided by the composers.
2. It might say that the three composers provided instrumentation?

• • It's been rewritten. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Composition: Good.

Live performances and cover:

• "Morris' character, Brittany S. Pierce, covered the song in the episode, performing a choreographed dance routine to the song."

1. I'm confident that this phrase have a redundancy, but i don't know.

• • Slightly rephrased. This should fix the problem. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

--Hahc21 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Everything has been addressed. Thanks for doing the review. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok. I see no other issues on it. Should i give the verdict by now? Or i wait until Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) to come and talk? --Hahc21 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, he gets credit either way so might as well just give the verdict. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

Ok, this is the first time I finish a review on 1 day. I scanned it easy and fast. I'll be watching the rest of the GANs he have submitted.

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: Nice and easy. A record. I have to congratulate (CK)Lakeshade and Till I Go Home for their amazing work on this article. No big issues, only 2 prose little correctiosn and it's done. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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.