Talk:Everything I Wanted/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 13:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to fail this nomination for the following reasons:

Infobox claims formats not backed by any sources and not in the article, also needs alt and the song has no genres? I doubt regarding its widespread coverage
On the Lead it doesn't worry me he lack of information as much as the melting pot its going on there. You start weel then use some references that should be added to the body of the article, instead of giving me (the reader) more information regarding the backgorund and composition you go straight to the reviews and chart performance. There is not a another mention of beince included in the album besides in the lead. The lead works as a resume.
Release and reception → the chart peak should be in the commerical performance section, we only use this in case the song has peaked in one or two charts (clearly not the case). On top of this how many release sections do you need? (Background and release section is the first). This section doesn't cover the release at least for now.
Portions of the Composition and lyrics section are blunt copy-paste. Moreover, the last sentences are more appropriate to the background section. Picture is not giving me any new information, it is already written in the article.
On the Music video, which is probably the best section in here, can not only be expadend but the the prose is not clear
Needs Formats and tracklist if there are so many format it was released
Regarding the Live performances section there are more performances such as an acoustic at BLUX and covers by JP Cooper and Alicia Keys that should be mentioned
On the Credits and personnel make sure you mention everyone in other section of the body of the article
Needs a Commercial section where you can add a description of the song in the charts, as well as the Certifications which weren't evne mentioned
At this point, the song is still charting so very likely there will be more Year-end charts.
Release history shold also be on the body of the article
Not everything is work, there are several publishers such as BBC, Radio Date (this is not how you format a source), among others, "NME Music News, Reviews, Videos, Galleries, Tickets and Blogs | NME.COM" → whats is event his?
Works like " tonedeaf.thebrag.com", "papelpop.com", "www.empik.com " → this is no way to present websites as work
Dates had diferent formats they can go either DMY or YMD
No wikilinks
Titles of references in all caps don't go well
Avoid sources such as tweeter and instagram per WP:ALBUMAVOID.
If all of this was not enough, the copypaste gave you three strikes on copyright violation.
More sources on the song: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there are others this was from a quick glance on the web.

With everything I pointed out, I'm failing this nomination. There's still work to be done to this article, it's not ready in any form or shape to be consider a GA. It needs to be expadend which can't be completed in a few days. I would highly recommend to nominate this article later at WP:GOCE to review the prose. I would also recommend you to ask for peer review before nominating articles as they can help you out. There are programs where you can have an older user helping you out as you make progress. Also, take a look at FA articles to get a good grasp. Furthermore, I advise you to stop these nominations and withdraw the others if they are also in this shape, as it doesn't strike me you are familiarized with the good criteria.

According to the six good article criteria: This fails Verifiable with no original research for lines A and D; Broad in its coverage as it lacks main aspects of the topic; Illustrated as the media is not relevant to the topic, as I pointed above, it is not well written failing line A. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]