Talk:Round & Round (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Please complete the points kindly listed by Hekerui.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The article passes Manual of Style.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	'Track listing' 'UK Promo CD Single' is not referenced.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article has all the major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The article is focused on the subject.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	Failed, no edits since 18 December.

Discussion

Ask questions if there is a need for that. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FAILED – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 11:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

Lead

• The lead sentence "critics taking note of the song's instant attraction beyond the expected demographic" is vague since the demographic is not mentioned.
• "second highest charting single" "behind 'Who Says'" - the song did not chart behind the other song but later
• according to whom did the single chart "moderately" in other countries? that sounds like original research
• "The song's lyrics speak of a relationship going around in circles." - one can rephrase that image, it makes no sense as such
• what is "the song's middle eight"? that should be explained when it comes up
• "Kylie Minogue circa 2001" and "Kesha-esque" should be attributed, these are opinions and not matter-of-fact

Reception

• "praised Gomez's vocal maturity and rock edge likely thanks to producer" - the sentence does not flow well, should be clarified, the reviewer thinks the "edge" is likely to the producer
• the section uses many quotes whose ideas can be paraphrased in own words - we should try to minimize usage of copyrighted material
• the use of non-intuitive piped linked is deprecated
• wikilinks in quotes should be avoided per MOS:LINK - specifically the links to Miley Cyrus, Can't Be Tamed and Hilary Duff
• "Propelled by a debut at number fifteen on the US Hot Digital Songs chart ..." - this suggests causality where none exists for effect, please use plain language
• "The song performed moderately in international markets." - this statement is unsourced and sounds like original research, as mentioned above

Music video

• "The filming of the video was made by Phillip Andelman..." - this is unclear, was he the director? if so, why not simply state that?
• "donning spy apparel", "and other duties" - these statements are unclear/vague
• the Nadine Cheung statement can be rephrased in one's own words and does not need to be copy-pasted in the article

I would like to see these issues addressed before a reassessment is considered. Hekerui (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I must thank-you for this review. I am sorry if I made any inconvenience. – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 21:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)