Talk:Rude Boy (Rihanna song)/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This discussion has been closed and the article has passed GAR.
I've requested GAR for this article because the GAN was passed in haste and without any constructive points to address, apart from 'suggestions that wouldn't affect it's GA status.' I'd like this article to be properly reviewed by an experienced editor who is well acquainted with the GAN Criteria. (For the discussion about the white-wash review, see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, for the GAN review in question, see Talk:Rude Boy (song)/GA1. Thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Starting... — Legolas (talk2me) 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can you start soon? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*February 19, 2010 through --> Always have commas after a full date --> February 19, 2010, through
Music video
Lead and infobox
Background
---->
See teh difference between the quotes placed in it. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Critcal reception
Chart performance
Live
Personnel
References
Charts
Much work is needed for this one. Pretty poor I must say. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
(→) You need a lesson on your attitude Calvin. First of all, you have absolutely no clue about content editing, about policies and about what works and doesn't. Second of all, you crib about everything. In FAC, in FLC, in GAN, everywhere. And its not me who has noticed this. Nathan, Orane, Mark and countless other people have noticed this and are disappointed. You should be learning from this, not trying to throw an attitude because, frankly, you are a poor editor. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Further Problem
[edit]- Ref 2 --> italics
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 7 --> Reliability?
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 9 --> reliability
- What gets more reliable than an actual video of Rihanna explaining about the songs background and development more than Rihanna herself in the video? This is staying as it explains everything about the development of the song and this is the only site that has the full interview with the section of the video which explains the song. This needs to stay. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- The video links to Dailymotion, it fails reliability like the website. Please see WP:COPYVIO. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's a shame, because than interview is crucial for the songs background. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can find out when that interview aired, host of the interview, location etc, and use {{cite episode}} for it. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's a shame, because than interview is crucial for the songs background. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The video links to Dailymotion, it fails reliability like the website. Please see WP:COPYVIO. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- What gets more reliable than an actual video of Rihanna explaining about the songs background and development more than Rihanna herself in the video? This is staying as it explains everything about the development of the song and this is the only site that has the full interview with the section of the video which explains the song. This needs to stay. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 12 --> italics Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 16 --> WP:OVERLINK
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 73 --> Needs consistency problems
- What do you mean by "needs consistency problems"? That makes no sense.
- Maintain consistency between the reference from the same publisher. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "needs consistency problems"? That makes no sense.
8::: There's nothing wrong with the Daily Mail references, I've removed some references, so I'm assuming this is the one you are talking about now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I meant the BBC references. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101 all have the same italicization problem
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref 42, doesnot support the claim it makes, thus making File:Rihanna rudeboy.jpg fail reliability.
- But clicking on Keith Haring does support that that was his style of art. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- That's not the point of adding a reference. The comment talks about the inclusion of a specific type of art in that specific scene, which is not supported. Thus failing original research. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- But clicking on Keith Haring does support that that was his style of art. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- File:Rude Boy.ogg --> The steel drum text supporting it is original research.
- I didn't do this, Jivesh is the one to speak to. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no interest in speaking with other people. You are the nominator, its your job to circumvent issues. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The Billboard review doesn't say that steel drums were used at the foundation of the song. Do you even know what foundation of a song is? — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't do this, Jivesh is the one to speak to. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Steel drums are a welcome presence on the production. I saw this phrase,. Anyway, can you please explain? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean its used in the foundation of the song? That's original research. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay but i requested an explanation? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is there to explain? Its as simple as Christmas is on 25th what the reviewer is saying. The part added in the article is OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is as simple as Christmas for you not for me. What does a sentence like "as its foundation" mean? How can it be used? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- It cannot be, coz there were no steel drums at the song's foundation. It was just the ska. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is as simple as Christmas for you not for me. What does a sentence like "as its foundation" mean? How can it be used? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is there to explain? Its as simple as Christmas is on 25th what the reviewer is saying. The part added in the article is OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay but i requested an explanation? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean its used in the foundation of the song? That's original research. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Steel drums are a welcome presence on the production. I saw this phrase,. Anyway, can you please explain? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know. That is why i wrote Okay above. I wanted to ask when we can phrase it as such. Does the reviewer need to state it exactly as such? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of course he she needs to, otherwise its our own interpretation. There in comes OR. I feel that steel drums are mainly on the bridge of the song, but that's my observation. I cannot add it right? — Legolas (talk2me) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for your explanation. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of course he she needs to, otherwise its our own interpretation. There in comes OR. I feel that steel drums are mainly on the bridge of the song, but that's my observation. I cannot add it right? — Legolas (talk2me) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
These are some other problems. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't the Background section be expanded further? A quick search gave me two interviews with Ester Dean! Novice7 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Surely they can be expanded. Good links Novice. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ester Dean and Makeba Riddick are two different people. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The background section is enough now that it can be splitted from the composition. Also the composition can be further enhanced with the chord analysis from Musicnotes. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Musicnotes please. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Give me a chance to see comments Legolas. I do have a real life. I don't know how to read music so I can't add it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you need help, you can ask for it. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know what you mean and what it looks like, I've seen it in other articles, but I don't know how to read it on the website or how to write it here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I will add it for you. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- OKay thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I will add it for you. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know what you mean and what it looks like, I've seen it in other articles, but I don't know how to read it on the website or how to write it here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- If you need help, you can ask for it. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Give me a chance to see comments Legolas. I do have a real life. I don't know how to read music so I can't add it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Musicnotes please. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The background section is enough now that it can be splitted from the composition. Also the composition can be further enhanced with the chord analysis from Musicnotes. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ester Dean and Makeba Riddick are two different people. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Further observations
[edit]Can you close this now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- No. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- And why is that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- There are still issues cropping up whenever I look into the article. I will close it when I feel the article has improved to be a GA. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- And why is that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Novice comments
- Ref #53: Idolator (website) --> Idolator.
- Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Ref #26 and #27: same website, but inconsistent publishers.
- I can't change 26 because of how it is formatted in the charts table, it's pre-coded. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Same with Refs #30 and #31, #32. Novice7 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- They all have the same publisher. But 30 has a work parameter that I can't change because as above, it is a pre-coded source. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment- IMO this article was a GA when I reviewed it. Now it is even better than that and this review should be closed. The things the reviewer is asking to be fixed constitute FA candidate requirements. This article completely meets the requirements of GA. I would take this to FA nominations. This is one of the best written articles I've seen. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
As the article has improved significantly since its first GA review and all posted issues seem to be resolved, this article has been closed as kept. Novice7 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)