Talk:U + Me (Love Lesson)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I should be able to complete my first look today. All of my suggestions are up for discussion. I'll be claiming this review for points in the 2018 wikicup upon completion. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"her 13th studio album" - comma needed after album
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" previous single "Thick of It"" - comma needed after single
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and release
" studio album Strength" - comma needed after album
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You give the date of release for the download, but the album gets a vague (2017) date. Is the date of the physical release not worth noting?
For these articles, the year is typically only included. If the reader wants to read more on the album, then they can click the link. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no concern then. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Composition and lyrics
Andy Kellman should be paired with AllMusic at his first mention, not his second.
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has a repetitive sentence structure: "Critic A of Publication B [verbed] an element of the song was ____." This doesn't need to be corrected to pass GA, but you might consider changes to add some variety.
I will revise it in the future if that is okay. I am not sure how to revise the sentence structure without making it sound or read unnecessarily awkward. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is helpful - I refer to it often myself. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"previous single "Thick " - should be a comma after single
Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
"D-Money of Soulbounce.com " - This doesn't sound like a high quality critic. Is it worth including with the others?
The site includes information on their board of editors so there is proof of editorial oversight (as shown here). For that reason, I believe that it is fine for inclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - no concern ten.

"A writer for Jet" - if the writer isn't named, I suggest just attributing the opinion to Jet. "A writer" is begging for a {who} template.
Since a majority of the other sentences follow the pattern of (X writer from Y publication), I would prefer to keep the similar pattern throughout the article. I have also been warned against attributing information to an entire publication as it is the opinion of a singular writer as opposed to the whole publication. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others who prefer it, and but I'm fine with it since it's a purposeful choice. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
This section seems pointless. It just lists the name and length of one song, both of which are easily found at least twice earlier in the article.
It is standard to include this section in all song articles as an easy reference for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the case. No concern. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personnel
no concern

Charts
no concern, but you might consider adding the length the single stayed on each chart.

Release history
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
A bit on the short side, but nothing obvious seems to be left out.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
all the critical commentary is positive, but in my experience reviewers with negative opinions on topics like this typically ignore them and write about something else. No concern.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern, but you might consider revising the alt text from "an image" to "a headshot" for clarity.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few minor tweaks requested. Passing pending responses. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, everything looks good. I'm happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]