Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Passion (Utada Hikaru song)/1

Passion (Utada Hikaru song)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: pass CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 06:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a huge fan of this song (and the artist), and I was the Wikipedian that nominated it (which eventually received a GA approval), and potentially want to gain this article prospects as a Featured Artice. However, over time, I have noticed that there were a lot of elements and mistakes that were not identified in the review that was originally conducted to get it to GA standard; for example, there were prose/grammar issues, inconsistent value of citation templates, overuse of words, awkward tenses and placements of sub-articles and the inappropriate/discouraging use of blogs and other below A-class websites (little to my knowledge at the time). As a result, I am putting this up for re-assessment to see if this is of any right to make it inside the GA community. I have tided up the article severely to a good and appropriate standard, but need more advice in order to improve it and keep it at GA level, and I'll give it my all and determination to take your guys comments and criticisms in order to get this to a higher standard in any way possible. Any criticism or comments are welcomed. Best regards, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 05:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do bear responsibility for this as it's my own missed mistakes that have partially caused this. I'll certainly give some advice about the references: Ref 41 says "Subscription based" which probably means people in general can't access the information its providing unless its in preliminary blurb. Also all references not yet archived need to be so either through Wayback Machine, WebCite or Archive.is. I think other editors are more suited to catching grammar errors. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries and thank you for the response; I'll get to archive the articles shortly! CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 09:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to archive references, you certainly can, but archiving is not part of the GA criteria, so it should be irrelevant to this reassessment. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: my main noticeable thing to be changed is the rationale for the nonfree images and samples. They are still adequate and does not explain in the file page as to how it passes wP:NFCC#8. Check the rationale for the images in "Nothing Really Matters" for example. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @IndianBio: I was concerned with those at first. Those samples and shots (apart from the video still and the top two infobox images, which have been scaled down and changed) were already on the article as their current quality, which I have over viewed and indeterminately do not meet the standards of Wikipedia guidelines; I will render them immediately and ping you. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IndianBio: Re-formatted the samples and image files. If there are any concerns, don't hesitate to contact me. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]