Talk:Papers (song)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments:
"Buzz single" is industry jargon and should be explained.FixedSean Garrett is mentioned twice in the second paragraph.Fixed, I think. He was mentioned twice because the last paragraph deals mostly with composition but techincally it is still background information, so I didn't split it. However I removed his first name from the second mentioning.
- This is the sentence I'm referring to (second paragraph): "It was written by Usher, Sean Garrett, Alonzo Mathis, Sean Garrett and Zaytoven, and was produced by the latter two." -- S Masters (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Other than the above, the article has no major issues.
- Oops, I thought you mean second paragraph of Background. Fixed now! Candyo32 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Summary: Thank you for all the fixes. I am confident that the article now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as such. -- S Masters (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)