Talk:Roar (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 02:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the review. Ref 130 has, in red, that "Australia's Official Top 50 Songs" is rejected. There's also four links that just need to be modified ever so slightly (uncheck "Good" in checklinks, let me know if you need help with the tool). -- Zanimum (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done prism △ 12:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, something that should definitely be adjusted is how contributors in the infobox (Cirkut and Dr. Luke) are listed by different names (Henry Walter and Lukasz Gottwald, respectively). The flaw with this is that it can potentially mislead readers into thinking they are different people (especially when reading without clickable links). Other than that, this is definitely worthy of being listed as a "good article". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, XXSNUGGUMSXX. I'm glad to see it is standardized in the article itself, but I would have never realized they were the same person, in the infobox. Is this how they're credited on the release? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked my Prism booklet and they're credited like they're now on the infobox: stage names for production; real names for songwriting. prism △ 15:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing "Commercial performance", "Track listing", "Charts and certifications", "Release history". (Note that I check references last, this pass is for the prose, for now.) -- Zanimum (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing "Background", "Promotion", "Music video". There were some changes, including Lisa Frank pointing to the person, as opposed to the company. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the two fair use images, and the fair use audio. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing "External links", "Critical reception" (although it does seem short compared to the ones in other pop songs I've reviewed GANs for), and "Composition and plagiarism accusations". Starting "References".

Dr. Luke's quote... it's good to link to the actual tweet, but you should also cite a news outlet that quoted the tweet.

Not done, no news outlet reported it... the only solution is to remove the text from the article.

https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Roar_%28song%29#view:0.1.1.1.1.1 Checklinks finds one "Warn", four "Status", and one "Connection issue". Please fix these.

Done, I think. Prism △ 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the rest of the references later. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a tiny change in the article's structure: I've changed the Background section name to Artwork and moved the part where it says "Roar" was recorded in March 2013 to the Composition section. Prism △ 11:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy with work for the last little bit, and then suddenly Toronto was hit with a crippling ice storm.

Looking to FA articles about songs for guidance, I'm not sure any have a promotion section so far up. The promotion was before the song's release, but ultimately, the actual music should take precedence over the marketing. Also, isn't the release artwork just an element of promotion? I will note that most FAs have a background/writing/inspiration section, so while I will pass the article as a GA without one, it likely won't qualify for any higher. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once it's GA passed I can try to find some info on that, although the promotion section is basically a Background section, usually. I'll move artwork to promotion section. Prism △ 19:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Writing and Development section, altered Composition and Critical reception sections to merge them, moved Announcement and promotion section. Although it isn't in much more featured articles, I don't want to remove that information at all. Prism △ 23:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing! -- Zanimum (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]