Talk:Danny!/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 16:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to fill out the review template, and then make comments afterwards. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Sorry, but I'm inclined to quickfail this article. It still has many of the same problems in its prior GAN, way back in 2008. I don't see much concentrated effort to improve it since.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article suffers from both major POV and MOS issues. See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is the area that's the weakest. Again, see below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See below re: POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Just one image and it seems to be free use and appropriately tagged. See my questions/suggestions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As I stated above, I'm inclined to quickfail this article. I'll give you a week to work on the issues I address here before that, though.

Comments

• This article suffers from POV issues; much of it sounds like a press release put out by Danny!'s agent. For example, in the "Biography" section: He started penning his own lyrics—after initially being reluctant to rap—and eventually recorded makeshift songs primarily as a showcase for his production. Also, in the "Continued success" section: Danny! would continue to gain acclaim on his own merits... The quote boxes are promotional and overly complimentary to the subject.

• The lead breaks some MOS policies. For example, the WP:LEADCITE policy states that the lead doesn't require citations, unless the claims made are likely to be challenged.

• I've looked at other rap artists who use pseudonyms, and it looks like they use the artist's birth name until they change their names professionally. It looks like many of the sources refer to him with his birth name, though, including his own webpage; you might want to think about doing the same here.

• I could go further with a more thorough prose review, but there are other issues to address. If an article is strong in other areas, and weak in its prose, I tend to overlook it and try to help the main editor improve. I'll even do a copyedit. However, this article has too many other issues to even take the time to analyze its prose. If you make a concerted effort to improve the other issues above within the standard week, I'll take a closer look at the prose.

• Sources: This alone is reason enough to quickfail this article. First off, it's telling that the accessdates for most of our sources are several years old. You need to go through all the sources and make sure they still work, and then make the accessdates more recent. (That's a requirement for FAC, btw, but I want you to do it for this GAC.) I checked a few sources myself, and found some glaring errors. For example, ref1 says nothing about Swain's high school or that he pursued music as a hobby. Ref14 doesn't say that he was his parent's only son. Ref20 is broken. Ref4 breaks WP:USERGENERATED. I could go on, but I'll stop there. I can't pass this article until the sourcing problems are resolved. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)