Talk:Did It On'em

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Hahc21 in topic GA Review
Good articleDid It On'em has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review edit

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Did It on 'Em/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Hahc!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

First comments edit

Following, minor edits I made:

  • Lead too long for a single paragraph. Split into three. (done)
  • I uploaded the cover for the single.
  • Fixed that charts section.
  • Italized the album title on 'credits and personnel'
  • Split the paragraph on 'reception', too long.
  • Added quotation marks to "best rapping"

Comments edit

Music video
  • "Director DJ Scoob Doo revealed to MTV News" ... "In an interview with MTV News on May 31, 2011,"
  • The first appearance of MTV News should be wikilinked, not the last. Also, it is mentioned twice too closely, creating a redundant use of the word. Finally, the second says "In an interview with" and the first "revealed to". Better if the order is swapped.
  • "The video..." ... "The video was directed" >> "It was directed" (avoid redundancy)
  • "The video additionally" >> "Additionally, the clip features..." or "Additionally, it features Minaj"
  • "Minaj said that the video was a way of saying thanks to her fans" >> "Minaj stated the video was a gesture of gratitude to her fans" sounds better?

Nothing else to note by now. —Hahc21 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • No, nothing else.

Verdict edit

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Hahc21 02:25, 19 June 2012 (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.