Talk:Dear Future Husband/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review

Genres should be alphabetised in the Info box
for her major label → Use of 'major' sounds bias and fan-written
The song was written by Trainor and Kevin Kadish and produced by the latter, → It was co-written with and produced by Kevin Kadish
Some said → Some wrote
and nine → Comma after nine
The single → The song
opening number → Too colloquial
'chilling'". → 'chilling{{'"}}. (to stop the apostrophe and the quotation mark just looking like three apostrophes)
was premiered → premiered is already in the past tense, so 'was' isn't needed
Trainor initially announced in an interview with Popjustice in August 2014 → Boring to read "in... in"
the track is honed with slick production → Again, reads bias and fan written
In summing up her thoughts to Popjustice's Peter Robinson about → Poor phrasing
'special lovin'". → 'special lovin{{'"}}. (to stop the apostrophe and the quotation mark just looking like three apostrophes)
on a list a man → on a list of qualities a man
Rolling Stone writer Jon Dolan observed that with the lyrical content, "[Trainor] imagines marriage as a contract between equals who work and don't cook," → Bad sentence structure
Critical reception seems very small for such a recent release with a lot of media attention and chart success?
Chart performance is far too short and definitely not detailed enough considering the amount of countries it chart in (judging by the table below) and its certifications
What does exist of the Chart performance section, needs re-writing. It's mainly sentence structure that needs work. Plus it needs expanding per my previous comments
Music video section structuring is just really odd. I don't see the point of having three sub-sections of one small paragraph. There's no need to have sub-sections here at all
Formats and track listing is a redundant section because there's only one format/version.
References don't need publisher parameters anymore
There are multiple cases of WP:OVERLINK in the references, most notably of Billboard and MTV
The Official Charts Company references should say just that, not just UK Singles Chart. That's just the name of one of their charts.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Outcome

There are too many issues here. Section structure and article layout, sentence structure and grammar, references. I don't feel as though I can promote the article as it is right now. It needs a lot of working, plus some sections need expanding. Do as I've suggested and spend a few weeks honing it and going over it and then I would suggest re-nominating, but don't rush it. — Calvin999 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic