Talk:My Bologna/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HeyJude70 (talk · contribs) 07:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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.	Well written, only minor grammatical corrections to be made. Please refer to: *"...Capitol Records had contacted the station, requesting a version of the spoof for The Knack themselves." to "...Capitol Records had contacted the station, requesting a copy of the spoof for The Knack themselves." "Later, The Knack performed a concert at Cal Poly," to "Later, The Knack performed at Cal Poly," (flows better) "Yankovic later joked that this was done because..." to "He later joked that this was done because..." (As Yankovic is named in the previous sentence the repetition seems unnecessary). "As mentioned above, prior to the single's commercial release..." to "Prior to the single's commercial release..." (No need to reference earlier paragraphs). "[Knack lead singer] Doug Fieger..." to "[The Knack lead singer] Doug Fieger..." (proper band name must be used) "Yankovic was paid $500 for the song's master, as well as the master for the soon-to-be b-side track "School Cafeteria"; the month after The Knack's concert at Cal Poly, the "My Bologna" single was released on Christmas Day, 1979, and Yankovic was given a six month contract." needs to be seperated into two sentences. This could be "Yankovic was paid $500 for the song's master, as well as the master for the soon-to-be b-side track "School Cafeteria". The "My Bologna" single was released on Christmas Day, 1979 (a month after The Knack's concert at Cal Poly) and Yankovic was given a six month contract." "However, Yankovic soon learned that Capitol Records had no interest in promoting the single". Is there any explanation behind this that can be included? "Although an official video was never shot..." to "Although an official video was never released..." One last note, do you have any citations that could be used to add the Genre to the infobox? Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It would look more formal if the 'tracklist' template is used. This also allows for the total run time of the 7" to be shown.
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.
	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).	All citations are reliable, the Bibliography is well used.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All quotations are referenced.
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).	In the opening paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section, the details of Yankovic's life are very drawn out. Could these be shortened or re-written to focus on the song at hand more? Also: "Yankovic originally wrote the song while he attended California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, California; the original version of the parody was recorded in a bathroom across the hall from the radio station at which Yankovic worked." strays from the main topic, as the university that Yankovic attended is not relevant here. However, KCPR should be mentioned while focusing on the fact that the song itself was recorded in the bathroom across the road. "Kerdoon is now a sportscaster and reporter at KNX (AM) 1070 Newsradio in Los Angeles." Unnecessary, must be removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit-wars.
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.	Both images used are in free use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Also, the image of Yankovic depicts him after his image change. The song was written when he had his iconic permed hair, so if possible another image (such as this) could be used. However, if for copyright purposes this image cannot be used, the current image is fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	There are many issues with this article that must be addressed before this article will pass the Good Article criteria. I would appreciate any other input, insights or comments on the review. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Given that a week has passed and no changes have been made since the initial review, it is unlikely this will pass. The review will be closed soon. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC) No effort has been made to correct these shortcomings so I am left with no choice but to fail this GA review. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC) Review re-opened ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC) All points have been satisfied, passed review ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@HeyJude70: For some reason, I didn't get a message on my talk page that this had been placed on hold, nor did I get an update on my watchlist. I'd be more than happy to get these issues fixed today, if you'd be so kind as to give me the benefit of the doubt.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some points:

• • I have addressed/fixed all of the prose issues that you pointed out. In regard to why Capitol didn't promote the single, I'm not sure why that is. No source mentions a why, just that it happened.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• • In regards to why the lead doesn't have citations, per WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I have cited all of this information in the body of the article, and as such, I feel that it is redundant to cite it again in the lede. The no-citations-in-the-lede approach has been embraced by myself and used in nine featured articles. As such, I feel that there is a precedent for my stylistic approach.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• • In regards to the info about Yankovic's background, I feel that this is necessary for this article, because it was Yankovic's first single. In addition, before the article starts talking about "My Sharona", only one sentence is given that sets the stage.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• • In regards to the inclusion of CalPoly, personally, I disagree. He was a student at the university, and the radio station was affiliated with the university. Without a mention, readers might be left to wonder about the background and context for the song.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: Hi Gen. Quon, I'm very sorry that you were not notified of the review, as I'm sure it would have been fixed quite quickly if you were. I would be happy to readdress this review, I am just not sure if I can use this page again as I have already marked it as a fail. You may know more about this than I, does the article have to be re-nominated? If so, I'd be happy to review it again. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

ThomDevexx ॐ, I've just reopened the review for you; you should continue the review on this page. In cases where the reviewer has closed the review prematurely and wants to continue where they left off, you can just revert your edit that closed it, which I have done for you. The reason Gen. Quon wasn't notified was that you didn't formally put the review on hold; instructions for doing so, so you'll know in future, are on the GAN instructions page at Putting the article on hold. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

BlueMoonset Thank you, a life saver as per usual.

Gen. Quon The review is reopened and now 'properly' On Hold. I've updated it all just one little thing in the top box to be checked. Also, I was wondering if you had any comment on the suggestion for the image of Yankovic used to be changed? ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@HeyJude70: Thanks for opening it back up! I went ahead and added a citation to back up a genre tag. As for the image, I really would love to include something like that, but because it's already being used on the main Weird Al page, and because it's copyrighted, I think it's best to be judicious with its use and instead have a picture that's Creative Commons licensed, if that's OK.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: Brilliant, pleased to see all the changes have been made. I thought that image couldn't be used, hopefully it the future an older one in free-use will be uploaded. Sorry for the difficulties with the review, but I'm happy to pass it now. Congratulations. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for giving me the second chance!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)