Jump to content

Talk:My Own Worst Enemy (song)/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: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will post a more-complete review in a couple of days, but in the meantime there are several [citation needed] tags scattered around the article, especially after direct quotations. These will need to be resolved before this article could achieve GA status. Grondemar 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The [citation needed] is now gone. Statik N (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this! I reviewed the article and have the following concerns that need to be addressed before the review could be passed:

  • In the lead: "The song was only moderately successful at first... It later achieved mainstream success...". Per the Commercial performance section, there appears to be only five weeks between "at first" and "later". I would have expected a period of months or years rather than weeks from that kind of description.
  • What makes Musicianguide.com a reliable source? You're using it to support direct quotes.
  • What makes Musicnotes.com a reliable source?
  • I know Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. I'd recommend removing the sentence this source is supporting as it does not add much to the article.
  • I found this article incredibly hard to read, because so much of it is either direct quote after direct quote, or a long list of chart placings. This article needs expansion with more prose to fill in the space between the quotes and placings.

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?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

As I believe the article requires significant work, I feel I have no choice but to fail the review at this time. I apologize for the inconvenience. Grondemar 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]