Jump to content

Talk:Hanging by a Moment/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Info box
  1. You say Ron Aniello and Brendan O'Brien in the Lead, but only list Aniello in the Info box, so you need to list O'Brien as well.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead info
  1. "It is the first single released from their debut studio album..." → "It was the first single to be released from their debut studio album..."
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "ARIA" → SHould be like this the first time you mention a charts company: "Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), the use ARIA from now forth.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
  1. "It was produced by American record producer Ron Aniello and was mixed by by Brendan O'Brien.[2]" You're contradicting yourself, in the Lead you wrote that they both produced and mixed, but here you are saying that one produced and the other mixed.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "He then described his expectations when writing songs and said" → "He went on to describe his expectations when writing songs, saying"
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This section is a bit weak by itself, do what I told you to do in Broken with regard to this section here.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and critical reception
  1. Don't need to keep wiki-linking Jason Wade. Once in the Lead is enough.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chart performance
  1. "On the Billboard Alternative Songs chart, the song debuted at number thirty-six for the week of October 28, 2000.[11]" You mention in the Lead that it was the US Alternative chart specifically where the song reached #1, because you have only written United States in the Lead.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Quite a bit of the prose in this section concerns me, I don't like quite a bit of the phrasing or choice of words. It needs copy-editing I think.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video
  1. The Background sub-section is not notable enough to have it's own sub-section, it's very short. I'd make it one paragraph along with the synopsis, but I would like a second opinion.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Were there any reviews for the video?
I could not find any reviews for the music video. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credits and personnel
  1. No issues.
  • Track listing
  1. No issues.
  • Charts, certifications and precession
  1. I don't think you need the precession table anymore, again would like a second opinion.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release history
  1. No issues.
  • References
  1. First, make sure you have followed a consistent form of formatting for each and every reference. You can use the one I gave as an example for the "Broken" review of use your own one, as long as everything is consistent.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Publisher for the Billboard references is Prometheus Global Media, but only wiki-link the first time, along with Billboard.
The publisher was Nielsen Business Media before Prometheus Global Media got it in 2009. Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No problematic links.

(Was the song not performed live?). I'm not sure about if this is GA worthy at the moment, there are quite a few prose issues which concern me, which I think need copy-editing further, and there are a few other points I am not sure on, so I am listing this review for a Second Opinion, for other peoples opinions on prose and any other issues that they find. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-reviewer comment - If this song peaked at number two on the Hot 100, shouldn't there be more info on the critical response? I don't know much about the song so I'm just wondering. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - For a song that became the biggest song in the US that year, and a number one single in Australia, its really short on content. The article is very small and not very informative in regards to its notability.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is too short at the moment. It needs considerably expansion and lot more information. Examples: Copy-edit the whole article, making sure prose flows and is easy to read, expand the Music video sub-sections, add any live performances, give details of the charts history, maybe a few weeks worth of charting to pad it out more, who held the song off of becoming #1?. This article doesn't meet GA criteria at the moment, because of a lack of information. Do you think you could expand this article? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I can expand this article in the general seven days given to meet the good article criteria. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to put this article on hold. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you have 7 days. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "Promotion" section which talks about Lifehouse's tours with Matchbox Twenty and 3 Doors Down. It also talks about their first headlining tour, and the dates that it occurred. Also, I have added quotes from Wade about the making of the music video and worked on the "Chart performance" section. Finally, I went through the entire article and fixed the many minor prose mistakes that were listed and that I found on my own. Saying this all, I do believe I have addressed all of your points. Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments:

  • The song was written by Lifehouse lead singer Jason Wade as the debut single for Lifehouse.[2] So what is being said here is that it was chosen to be the first single during the writing process? Adjust the wording. Doesn't make sense for something to be "written as a single".
  • Put "Lady Marmalade" in quotes and it isn't just Xtina's song.

Otherwise, good work expanding the article and hopefully it will be approved. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I truly appreciate them because they help me understand how to make Wikipedia better. I went ahead and fixed these mistakes. Rp0211 (talk2me) 00:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will go through everything tomorrow. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the Tour stuff is necessary, if anything, it should be on the parent album article. Also, you haven't include a work parameter for the MTV sources. The source is simply MTV, link the first instance only, and you will need to put .. around MTV so that it does not italicise. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the tour info and put it in the No Name Face article. I do not know how to not italicize the "work=" parameter, but did put MTV as the publisher and wiki-linked the first time it appeared in the "References" section. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To make something not italicise in the work paramter, you just do this: MTV, it has the opposite effect and doesn't italicise. (Click 'edit' on this page to see what I typed) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All issues have now been addressed. Rp0211 (talk2me) 20:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref [26], missed one. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; must have missed that one. I do believe all issues have been addressed. Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you have now made the article worthy of being a GA. You have done everything which was asked of you to improve and expand the article, and it looks so much better now and it much better to read. Article is passed :). Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanging_by_a_Moment/GA1&oldid=1141539360"