Talk:Bossy (Lindsay Lohan song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I am going to review this article in stages, most likely, but it seems shorts enough so as it will not take too long. Please note any concerns or issues you have in a separate section from here, using level three headers of course. These are all suggestions, and your own discretion and ideas are perfectly acceptable. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The lede has several glaring issues to me:

The electropop and dance-pop song, speaks about a woman who is strong enough to get what she wants when she wants it.

The comma should not be there, and I would change the sentence to something like this:

The song draws musical influence from the electropop and dance-pop genres; it is about about a woman being strong enough to get what she wants when she wants it.

This sentence:

"Bossy" received mixed reviews from music critics, who considered it a song with attitude, criticizing, however, Lohan's vocals and claiming it not as catchy as the singer's previous singles.

Should probably be changed to something along the lines of:

"Bossy" attained generally mixed critical reception upon release. Critics generally praised the attitude of the song, but considered the song less catchy than Lohan's previous efforts.

Outside the lede, there are a few issues. I find that the 'writer' section on the infobox is confusing, as the article switches between 'Shaffer Smith' and 'Ne-Yo'. I'd prefer the article stick to one name throughout. Also, I'd prefer the line 'making it the first song by Lohan to do so' to be replaced with something along the lines of 'a career first for Lohan' or rewording the sentence to recognize it at the beginning of it.

Criterion 1b is met to good extent. I would prefer the 'Reception' section be split into 'critical reception' and 'chart performance', but it is not essential.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Both 2a and 2c are met to good extent. 2b is not met to good extent, as several direct quotes in the 'reception' section do not have citations. While in most cases mid-sentence sources are not needed, they are required after direct quotes that are cut off mid-sentence. Other than that, sourcing is fine.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While the article is quite short, most aspects of the song (background, writing, genre, reception, charts) are covered. 3b is met to good extent.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fairly neutral in content.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues here.

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Only one image is used, but it fits the criteria.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Above issues need to be addressed first. Good job - passed. :)

Comments

• I think I have fixed all the issues you addressed in this review. About the songwriter, I mantained Shaffer Smith, but I added that he is known by his stage name Ne-Yo. Also, the reception section is too small to be separate into Critical response and Chart performance. There are several articles such as "My Only Wish (This Year)" and "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)", both GAs, that are in the same style as this one. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)