Talk:Give Me Your Eyes/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Lead, this sentence ---> "It ended 2008 as the second most-played song on Christian contemporary hit radio", might need to be re-written, just the beginning of it. In the Background section, "and although the song wasn't his top favorite", "wasn't" ---> "was not". In the Release section, "Upon its release, the single became popular on Christian radio", you might want to remove "popular", per here.
- Check.
- In the Lead, this sentence ---> "It ended 2008 as the second most-played song on Christian contemporary hit radio", might need to be re-written, just the beginning of it. In the Background section, "and although the song wasn't his top favorite", "wasn't" ---> "was not". In the Release section, "Upon its release, the single became popular on Christian radio", you might want to remove "popular", per here.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- In the Music video section, you might want to correctly link "Birmingham International Airport" to its correspondence article. In the Reception section, it might be best to link "Grammy Award" once, per here.
- Check.
- In the Music video section, you might want to correctly link "Birmingham International Airport" to its correspondence article. In the Reception section, it might be best to link "Grammy Award" once, per here.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The link titles in References 2 and 22 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- Check.
- The link titles in References 2 and 22 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I got all of your points. I really appreciate your review, thanks! When I read this review, I felt like trout-slapping myself for not seeing the little, obvious things (i.e., "wasn't vs. "was not"); this is the kind of stuff that I nitpick articles for. ;) It just goes to show how it's hard to spot certain issues in your own article work. :) Cheers, Jamie☆S93 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you did. You're welcome, you did me a favor, I'm just returning it. :) Don't give yourself such a hard time, everyone makes mistakes, no one's perfect. Exactly, I've dealt with that, even though I've gone through the article twice. :P Anyways, back to business. Thank you to JamieS for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's more just humorous to have "obvious" little issues sitting in front of you. ;) This is something strange, though: I just realized that this song won the "Song of the Year" title at the major Christian music awards last night! So I just updated it, and the article will probably get a lot of views now. Many thanks for reviewing and passing! Jamie☆S93 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it is like "How did I miss that?" sort of thing. :) Good luck on the "updates". Hey, its my pleasure, and its not everyday that you see Christian related articles at GAN, so keep up the good work. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's more just humorous to have "obvious" little issues sitting in front of you. ;) This is something strange, though: I just realized that this song won the "Song of the Year" title at the major Christian music awards last night! So I just updated it, and the article will probably get a lot of views now. Many thanks for reviewing and passing! Jamie☆S93 22:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you did. You're welcome, you did me a favor, I'm just returning it. :) Don't give yourself such a hard time, everyone makes mistakes, no one's perfect. Exactly, I've dealt with that, even though I've gone through the article twice. :P Anyways, back to business. Thank you to JamieS for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think I got all of your points. I really appreciate your review, thanks! When I read this review, I felt like trout-slapping myself for not seeing the little, obvious things (i.e., "wasn't vs. "was not"); this is the kind of stuff that I nitpick articles for. ;) It just goes to show how it's hard to spot certain issues in your own article work. :) Cheers, Jamie☆S93 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)