Talk:God with Us (song)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will take this review. I've never listened to MercyMe, although I have reviewed some articles for DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]| 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. | Fine |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fine |
| 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. | Good |
|
|
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). | Good |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Good |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Fine |
|
|
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. | Within definition |
| 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. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine |
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |
Comments
[edit]- Initial comment: Awfully short. Are you sure you aren't missing anything?
- 1A
- I'd suggest paraphrasing some of these quotes, as the article is so short.
- Done
- A comment on "could not get this idea out of his head," -- This is not encyclopedic wording; it should be paraphrased encyclopedically or put in quotes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- You should change the initial capitals in quote sentences where necessary.
- Noted
- Chart performance
- "God With Us" debuted at No. 17 on the Billboard Hot Christian Songs chart for the chart week of October 27, 2007." -- Don't think we should repeat chart twice.
- I think I corrected it?
- 3A
- Has the song ever been covered? Performed live by MercyMe? On TV? If so, when? What were they wearing?
- Not by a notable artist, no. I have noted uses in compilation albums instead, as well as added a section for their live performances.
- Who produced the music video? Where was the "live setting"?
- What songs beat it out?
- Done
- Hmm? What song replaced it as number 1? As a side note, if we don't have an article on said song then it's easily good for a new article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops, I thought you were talking about the year-end charts. Corrected. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- 6A
- You should probably use Template:Non-free use rationale album cover for the image. It will provide a stronger FUR.
- Done
- Hold for one week for an expansion of content. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although more in-depth information would be preferred, I have been unable to find any coverage of this song on-line. As such, I am passing this nomination.
- As there is a possibility that this may or may not go to GAR eventually, I will leave a note regarding my rationale. I do not wish to sound discriminatory, but it seems to me the lack of coverage is caused by the limited market share of Christian rock; a mainstream song like "Umbrella" would not pass at 4500 characters. I am convinced that the nominator has tried his or her best to make the article comprehensive with the limited sources available; my experience with Caffo suggests that it is acceptable, and indeed some featured articles (such as the controversial MissingNo. are not much longer than this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)