Talk:One Time (Justin Bieber song)/GA1

GA Review #1

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

Reviewer: The Flash ^{talk} 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, first off, sorry for the long wait, I've been both busy and quite the procrastinator, actually. But here it is. This is a fine article, so here's my overview:

• There's three images. Two are fairuse; rationales are good for both, but File:Onetimealbumcover.jpg needs a lower resolution. All images, also, need alt text. The other sound file is also a-okay.
• Prose is all fine, so nothing to say here.
• Structurally, this article is good and abides by all guidelines from WP:MOSMUSIC.
• As for references and citations, sources all seem reliable and the proper templates are being orchestrated. Meanwhile, though, ref 11 is screwed up and needs to be fixed.

And that's all I have to say about that. :P Fix the above concerns and I'll pass it for sure. Cheers, The Flash ^{talk} 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

I have a few concerns I'd like to raise:

*"The song, moderately paced with R&B, pop, and hip-hop influences, and is an ode to young love." drop the last and. Fixed *Refs need to be outside of quotation marks, commas, periods, etc., like this.^[1]

• Almost the entire composition section is unsourced. - Fixed

*Digital Spy is not a reliable source, they have been accused of plagiarism from time to time so it's best not to use that source. In that same section, remove the Radio Disney comment as it has nothing to do with critical reception. - Fixed *Neither of the images in the music video section meet WP:NFCC#8 as they do not enhance the reader's understanding of the video. - Debateable, music video caps give understanding. *As I've previously told the nominator, the Pop Songs chart should not be used. As an airplay chart, is a component of the main chart (the Hot 100). - Chart can now be used per WP:USCHART

Additionally, the certification field in the infobox can be removed as it discusses it later on in the article. Try to incorporate the genre sources into the article because cites are not preferable in the infobox. That's all from me. - Fixed Chase wc⁹¹ 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the article again, I have some additional comments:

• The sales figures in the certification table need a cite. For the Canadian figures, the MTV source only states that the song had to have sold at least 10,000 copies to have reached its platinum status; the actual figure is not stated. - Fixed

:*Try to incorporate as many of the sources in the lead into the main article as possible. Lead sections do not need to be cited if the information is already present (and cited) in the body of the article. - Fixed :*Drop Records from "Island Records" in the infobox per Template:Infobox single. - Fixed :*Also in the infobox, the writer's first names can be written out (for example, "Christopher 'Tricky' Stewart" as opposed to "C. Stewart") since they are known (most of them appear to be producers). Unlink Stewart's name in the producer field. - Fixed

*Just a suggestion, but perhaps it would be better to trim down the infobox by removing the music video section? Add a link to the video in the external links section (this should be a link to the video at MTV.com or a similar site; YouTube is not preferable). - Fixed

That should be it this time! –Chase (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I should note that it has been more than a week since the article was initially reviewed, and very few of the concerns raised have been addressed. The nominator appears to be active. –Chase (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer has given me permission to close this GA review and assess it as I deem necessary. Some concerns were addressed, while others weren't. There is an airplay chart still in use, the citations inside periods have not been fixed, the composition section still remains largely unsourced... more than enough time has been given for these issues to be addressed. Sorry, but I will not be passing this GAN. Send this in for a peer review and try again; this article definitely has the potential to be GA or even FA status. –Chase (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)