Talk:Sing Like Me/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adabow, I will be reviewing this article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No dab links or dead links, references are good, so thats one down on my list. And now since the stupid printer is now working. I will get down to business. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed that one of my favourite songs from Graffitti did not get a meaty article but Adabow did all he could. He's a great editor. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the ELs chgeck out fine, I will go ahead with prose.

Lead

on November 24, 2009 in the United States --> on November 24, 2009, in the United States
It was written by Brown, Big Makk --> Consecutive sentences beginning with It. Try rephrasing.
Big Makk --> Change it to just Makk in the second occurence. Like Gaga, Diddy etc Makk uses only his second name and people call him as Makk.
the song contains lyrics surrounding Brown leaving --> No, its not surrounding that situation, its about Brown leaving the nightclub only.
a mixed response --> Why a? Mixed response is enough.
charted briefly on the US --> This actually leaves a hanging plot kinda thing. Briefly is a word to be taken with a little amount of salt. It can imply anything... "SLM" charted for some days then left, or "SLM" charted then left, then again came bnack, then left again. You get my point? The usage of briefly is wrong here, and I'm afraid you have to say about the peak on R&B chart.

All done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back & compo

Same for Makk
the tune at The Record Plant in Los Angeles, California --> What I'm gonna say would be true for both Record Plant and Compound. They are basically recording studios. You need to mention the word studio somewhere at least. The uninitiated won't have a clue as to what the hell these places are for.
There are again repeated instances of "the song". You can actualy replace some of them with the song name. It flows better.
and Asian-esque strings --> Wrong way of putting it. Gil Kaufman of MTV surprisingly is bad in English. Asian-esque strings doesnot really mean anything. A string instrument can't be Asian-esque right? Hence better would be to say "808 drum beats and a string arrangement featuring Asian influences."
likened the tune's beat --> Wikilink beat
and described the song's lyrics --> Remove song's
The Yahoo Music and the Rap-Up commentary appears a little bizarre. See, a magazine or an online publication cannot give an opinion, its their writers or their associate freelance editors who give it. I strongly suggest you change the tone of the sentences as such. Where writers are not available, always imply that "Editor/Writers for so-and-so magazine...."

I linked beat in an earlier sentence, all others done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The line starting from "On March..." looks like a pretty straight forward commentary. Find ways to sauce up the section. You can say that "'Sing Like Me' was not sent for adds to the radio/ 'Sing Like Me' was not successful commercially...." then proceed to the charts

I added the no radio release, but isn't "was not successful commercially" kinda OR?

I wasn't aware of the radio thing, hence I would have changed it to "SLM had a limited commercial release...". But what you added is also fine. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously no other critical reviews? Not even in passing?

Added some more, but please check the reliability of sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked them, including the author. They appear to barely pass WP:RS. Hence they are fine. I'm passing this article for GA. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

Fine

References

You have repeated the url for the Billboard links. For eg: This is a repeated link, while this is the actual link. Billboard links get redirected and repeated because of the stupid "#" sign.

D'oh. Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not much to do here. I hope you have a consensus to create this article. Was it ever Afd'ed? Because there is high chance that it might face one. There is hardly anything in the article. If I was in your position I would have redirected it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted per here on the day of the release, and was later deleted several times and salted – before its charting. I asked the admin to unsalt the article, showing him my userspace draft. No-one has brought up a notability issue since, so I proceeded to GA nommy it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are the things that I wanted to see. Its fine Adabow. You did as much as you could with the article and I'm happy that you undertook the effort. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]