Talk:Open Your Heart (Madonna song)/GA1

GA Review

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

I think it is a very good article. If anything it is a little too long, but that's no big deal. If you want add a citation or two in the overview, but that's about it. I'm passing it. BillyJack193 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

The article is readable, has a good scope and is well-referenced. It appears to be at the right level to acheive GA-status without too much work.

I will now go through it in detail again, but leaving the WP:lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As above, this article is generally at or about GA-level. At present, I'm just concentrating on minor "problems/defects":

• Critical response

• The first paragraph states "Author Nicholas B. Dirks, in his book Culture/power/history reviewed the song ....". Well there are three editors, so is it his book (possibly 1/3rd of it is his)? Are you refering to a particular chapter in the book, with a named author who happens to be Nicholas B. Dirks?

•  DoneChanged to one of the authors. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Musical video

• In contrast to the information provided about the song, its not clear from this section, the WP:lead, or the Info box, when the video was made. The first paragraph says, it was nominated for three wards in 1987, so perhaps its late 1986 to 1987?

•  DoneIt was 1987 only. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• WP:lead -

• This is generally OK, although the first sentence, which also acts as an Introduction, aught to mention that it was released both as a song and a video.Pyrotec (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Done? I don't fully understand what you're looking for. Is what it looks like now what you had meant? Oy! Forget I said anything. ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is this really necessary? I haven't seen that kind of inclusion in any other GA article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The WP:lead is intended to do two main things, act as an introduction to the article and to provide a summary of the important asspects of the article. I would suggest that the second paragraph provides quite a good summary of the video section of this article. However, my comment when I read it was "what video" as the first paragraph only talks about the song, and remixing. Alternatively, the second paragraph could perhaps be slightly modified as:

The song was well-received by critics and achieved commercial success worldwide topping the chart in U.S., thus making it Madonna's fifth Billboard Hot 100 number-one single. It was also released as a music video. The video, however, visualised a different concept of the song.....

main review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, easily-readable, wide-ranging article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)