Wikipedia:Peer review/Habits (Stay High)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA, but I want to get some feedback first.
Thanks, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The first thing that strikes me is that this is very heavy on non-free content. Three album covers (300 by 300 px is normally considered big enough, by the way- the pictures used aren't much above that, but still), two samples (per WP:SAMPLE, 64kbps and 10% of the song's length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter, would be standard) and two music video screenshots seems a little excessive. Some more general comments:
- Avoid contractions. They're a little informal for articles.
- "didn't get to finish too much" is too rhetorical. The sentence is also odd because you talk about her not finishing things in New York before you've even said what she was doing there
- The "Inspiration" section might be thought to lean a little too heavily on quotes. I don't mind too much, and I can't see it being a problem for GAC, but something to think on.
- "Lyrically, the song talks" That's not what "lyrically" means.
- "the singer emphasizes on her problems with sex" Clumsy
- "The reviewers of Rolling Stone" Reviewers of Rolling Stone would be people reviewing Rolling Stone
- There is too much crossover between your critical reception section and your accolades section, I think. The latter should be reserved for actual awards and nominations, not just minor critics saying how great it is.
- This may sound like an odd thing given the focus of the song, but you need to be very careful about the sources you cite when you make claims about the singer drinking/taking drugs/sleeping around etc.- these are things which could be construed as negative claims about a living person.
I'll stop there and may be back (but no promises). This looks like a strong article which would, I think, do well at GAC. I hope these initial comments are useful to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the review. I'm addresing your comments now.Paparazzzi (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)