Talk:Guava Jelly (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Will grab this for a review. I will have my comments up in the next couple of days if that is okay with you as I am trying to take a break from here to focus on some offline work. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• In the lead, make sure that it is clear that "Redder Than Red" was the song that was misspelled as I originally read it as "Guava Jelly" being misspelled.
• I think it should be "a" rocksteady instead of "an" rocksteady.
• I do not believe you need the following phrase in the lead (, according to authors Monique Guillory and Richard Green). The author attribution is good for the body of the article, but I feel that it weighs down the lead, which should be a more seamless connection between ideas.
• In the lead, if you are going to use quotes "sexy" and "romantic", you will need to put the references or paraphrase.
• The phrase (Years later in 1991) sounds a little off to me. I would just say (In 1991) as the more precise date is more helpful as the reader can compare it with the release date of Streisand's cover version.
• This may be more of a personal preference so this is really up to you, but I am not entirely sure of the value of the image of different sexual lubricants. I do not really get the connection on how it can better illustrate that section.
• Should be "rocksteady than reggae" instead of "rocksteady that reggae".
• There is something a little off about the phrase (and later became Tuff Gong) as it is not entirely clear what subject is connected to "became" in the context of the sentence. I know you want it to connect with the record label, but I would suggest revising this sentence to make it stronger and clearer.
• I would suggest rearranging the first paragraph of the critical reception of Streisand's cover to put all of the positive reception at the start and lead into the negative reception to make the idea that it divided critics more obvious, specifically the last sentence of the paragraph should be moved farther up. Right now, it sounds like mostly negative reviews since the two positive reviews are separated from one another.
• I do not believe the "negative side" quote is necessary; I am sure you can paraphrase that.

Final comments

• Wonderful work. Once my comments are addressed, I will pass this. This does inspire me to work on articles related to older songs and albums. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I kept the image for now but can remove it if you'd like. I think it adds a bit of color to the article which is kinda good. All else is done; thank you! Carbrera (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC).

Final verdict

• Wonderful job with this. I will ✓ Pass it. Aoba47 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)