Talk:Dirrty/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems fine
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Somewhat narrow the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable per criteria.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good
	7. Overall assessment.	The article is not suitable for GA anymore.

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of 2013, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This action has been taken immediately because of the substantial problems afflicting this article. The article requires extensive attention and improvement, and is very unlikely to be brought up to GA standard within 7 days. The article has failed GA criteria per the review set out below. — HĐ (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Several sentences are not correct. For example: "serious down and dirty", "to eliminate the "teenybopper" and "girl next door" image"
• 'Composition' and 'Critical reception' sections are not enough
• 'Music video' section is too long and overkill the article
• Refs 72, 92 are not in the parameter
• Unreliable sources: ATRL, Rock on the Net, MonkeySuppers...
• ""Dirrty" stayed on the Italian Singles Chart for 21 weeks, peaking at number 8. Source?
• The sales of "Dirrty" in the US weren't as successful as Aguilera's previous singles; but only because it was released as a 12" vinyl single". Where is the source?
• "Stylus Magazine called ... occasions". Overkill the critical reception.
• Billboard Hot 100. Must be Billboard Hot 100
• "In the United States, "Dirrty" achieved moderate success on the Billboard Hot 100, peaking at number 48; however it logged 40 weeks on the chart, making it her longest-charting song to date". Source?
• Aguilera decided to use a misspelling for the title as a way to personalize the song, also considering "Dirtee" or "Dirrdy". She decided on "Dirrty" as a reflection of the music video, commenting, "I felt like having two r's, kind of like grrr...Gritty...underground, illegal stuff going on." This must be at the 'Background' section, not 'Composition'
• "In subsequent years however, the video received praise from the likes of Kelly Clarkson, Miley Cyrus and Taylor Momsen, with Cyrus claiming it to be one of the greatest videos ever." Requires reliable sources
• Track listings: Requires reliable sources, not Discogs.

— HĐ (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2013 (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.