Talk:I've Got Nothing/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sayantan (talk|contribs) 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article as soon as possible.--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 01:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check Against GA criteria

I'll finish the check completely in next few days. Meanwhile editors please try to resolve the problems I'm stating. It'll help save our time.--Sayantan (talk|contribs) 16:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

(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

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)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Review and comments

This article is almost ready to be a GA. Just some small issues we need to take care before I pass it to GA status.

Lead

Y

Background and writing

Chartjackers There is already a link for this on the lead. Remove this and all other repetition of links (eg. Miranda Chartrand in both lead and this section).

Done

The name of the guy(s) (who patched up the song from 4000 comments) is nowhere mentioned.

Added

Dark's composition was inspired by "Strawberry Swing" by British band Coldplay and drew heavily from that song's chords. Give proper source.

Fixed I can't find a decent source for that info, so I've just removed it.

Recording and release

I saw in iTunes the single costs $0.99. Mention this price.

Added

The deduction by iTunes is not sourced.

Fixed Removed.

Reception

File:I'veGotNothing.ogg--The general rule of an audio-sample of a non-free song is to upload a sample of length 10% of the original song's length or 30s, whichever is shorter. Therefore an audio-sample of a song of length 2:50 (ie. 230 seconds) should not exceed 23s threshold. The present sample is of 26s. Also, I don't think the "Non-free media use rationale for Miranda Chartrand" is not necessary.

Fixed I've uploaded a new version of the file that conforms to the 10% rule. I'd have thought that the named rationale for the Miranda Chartrand article would be necessary - it's a fair use file, so surely every article that displays it needs its own non-free media use rationale?

Music video

Y

Live performances

Y

Thank you very much for reviewing this article, Sayantan!

V o

BEDD (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to mention is the sentence "Over the next 18 seconds of the song, 11 different sets of 35 viewers... " (in the section "Music video") doesn't look very nice to me. Is it 35 users in total 11 sets or 35 users in each of the 11 sets? Anyway, fix that and congratulation, it's a GA now. Very good job. --Sayantan (talk|contribs) 03:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Sayantan, that's brilliant! I've added a brief parenthetical remark to the article that I hope makes it clearer than it was 35 different users in each of the 11 sets. Thanks again!

V o

BEDD (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]