Talk:Rock Steady (All Saints song)/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing this GAN. When approaching an article of this size I work in fits and starts, rather than tying the whole process up with a single edit and putting the article on hold. I'll start leaving comments shortly. Someone another 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial impressions are that everything's in there, and it's well on the way, but there's some rough edges. There's inconsistency in the way quotes are used, a few sections are stringy - loads of short paragraphs, the prose could do with a little tidying up and there are problems with excessive internal links - several are repeated. In terms of the overall assessment:

No problems with article stability.
No problems with neutrality.
Images and sound file have fair use rationales in place.
All internal links checked and working.
All external links checked and working..
- except #36 IrishCharts.ie, which is broken, and I have misgivings about some of these sources in terms of reliability.

The sources are going to be more of a problem. Someone another 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get specific.

General

There is a great deal of overlinking. Once a band, person, publication etc. has been linked to once then the term doesn't need linking to again, the infobox being an exception. There are several instances of Girls Aloud, Sugababes, individual members of All Saints etc. etc. being linked multiple times. Please correct this.
The controversy sub-section of the background section and the promotion and live performances section should be condensed into fewer paragraphs, they're messy looking.
There are instances of casual wording and weak prose. The article could really do with a copy-edit.

Background section

The quote from The Sun is surplus, both points in it (Lewis and Kurstin working together, Lewis writing it about the group) have already been covered directly beforehand. Please retain it as a cite but removed the quote.
The sound clip's description says a 30 second clip, it's 20 seconds long.
The quote in the controversy sub-section takes up a great deal of that section, which is far from ideal. Could you either break it out to resemble the rest of the text in that section or at least reduce its size. Also, why is this quote not laid out in the same way as the previous quote (The Sun)?
This statement: "The song is upbeat and contains prominent 2 Tone, dance-pop, reggae fusion, rocksteady and ska" definitely needs citing, genres are bones of contention and must be verified to have come from reliable sources.
There are no sources cited from "The song is constructed in verse-chorus form. " until the beginning of the controversy section.

Critical reception section

I know from experience it's difficult to balance these, but could you try and pull this section away from being a long list of quotes from different people? Try and paraphrase more and direct quote less, there is a balance to be struck.

Music video section

The main paragraph here is a large, unwieldy paragraph of text which is IMO too long anyway and has some fruity language, such as "Shaznay and Nicole then walk into the bank in supermodel style with whips". It could do with a trim and a bit of toning down.
Rather than use the quote from The Sun (cite #46) as the solitary 'reception' piece for the music video, it would be better to use that cite to say that the music video has an ocean's 11 feel. That removes a straggler sentence, helps to cite more about the music video. Note that the citation has a bear URL within it (see the reference section, #46).

Promotion and live performances

Again there's a quote here not formatted the same as the first quote in the article. The only reason this seems to be a quote is that there's a lot of usable information in one continuous block. I would expect a quote used on any article to be very punchy, to have some sort of historical relevance, to underline an entire article. This is just a newspaper reporter's impressions of a live performance by the band. I'd strongly suggest paraphrasing and quoting smaller snippets.

Sources

As previously mentioned, #36 seems dead.
There are a lot of youtube videos being used as sources, and the video uploaders in every instance (AFAICT) are not the copyright-holders. These aren't usable and should be replaced with other sources.
Source #42, Popdirt, is the article in The Sun not available online? It would be far better to cite that.
This is source #29, there doesn't seem to be any content, am I missing something?
This is source #27, what makes this forum post a reliable source?
Source #4 is a link to the Amazon shopping site, could you find a non-retail source for this?

I need to go through the text itself, word by word, but for now I am going to put this article on hold. There may well be further requests for changes, but the above covers the lion's share. Someone another 18:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no contact from the nominator and no edits have been made to the article, this nomination has failed on GA criteria 1(a): "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct"., the sources also remain a concern. Someone another 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]