Talk:Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The book discusses Lady Gaga's early life, including her background from a New York household and businessman father.. Poor prose, please rephrase.

   Born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta on March 28, 1986, she attended Convent of the Sacred Heart from age 11. Suggest that this goes in front of the preceding sentence.

   After a period of difficulty with her father due to her actions, she ceased this behavior pattern and took on a new name. Could be better phrased.

   She had an emotional break-up from a man named Luke, Poor prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The ISSN for ref #8 points at Psychologie française.?

   The ISSN for ref #9 points at Time Magazine?

   The ISSN for ref #10 points at The Independent?

   The ISSN for ref #11 points at The Australian Sunday Times?

   The ISSN for ref #18 points at nothing

   Suggest you simply drop the ISSNs as confusing.

   Otherwise references OK

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Lady Gaga has been catalogued in the National Library of Australia. Is this relevant? It would have been catalogued by the Library of Congress and the British Library as a matter of course. All books published in USA or UK are catalogued.

   Sales figures? Has it made any appearances on best seller lists?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I think all points addressed now. Happy to list as a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses to above GA Review hold

1. Fixed and copyedited recommended sentences, per GA Review above.
2. Removed all of the ISSNs from refs, per above GA Review suggestions.
3. Removed one sourced sentence, per GA Review recommendation above.
4. During the course of research and addition of the over 20 sources to this article, was not yet able to find info on sales figures.

Thank you for doing the GA Review! Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)