Talk:Rude Boy (Rihanna song)/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Rude Boy (song)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll review the article and list issues if existent. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- References: The date format should be the same everywhere., but this won't majorly affect the review.
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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:
The article is greatly written, just fix the date format in the references, and I'm gladly passing it for GA status. Congrats to all editors and the nominator, Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!, who helped make this happen! TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't think the article was this good to not have anything to amend, I would have thought there would be some points? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you would like to improve more, the personnel section could be a bit better referenced, but I didn't consider important enough to prevent GA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- So that is the only other thing in the entire article you think should be amended? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. If you feel my judgements are inadequate, then request a reassessment, but I stand by my review. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- So that is the only other thing in the entire article you think should be amended? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you would like to improve more, the personnel section could be a bit better referenced, but I didn't consider important enough to prevent GA status. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)