Talk:Genic/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 26, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Fail - although the article is well-sourced, it has several dead links.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Once links are fixed please renominate as it will likely pass.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— DrStrauss talk 15:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversing failure by novice reviewer

The reason for failing this nomination is not even a GA criterion: dead links are not a valid reason for failure. In any event, this was not a complete review; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp.

The article does have issues that will need to be addressed: in a quick read-through, I thought the prose did not always meet the "clear and concise" criterion. A few examples from the intro:

• paragraph 1: The material was recorded between her native Japan and locations in California and New York City, and is her first album since signing with her own private company Stella88. You can't record "between" Japan and other locations; that would be in the middle of the Pacific ocean. I'm also a bit puzzled by her signing with her own company—isn't that like signing with herself? Self-producing? This needs a better explanation, though probably in the body rather than here.
• paragraph 2: but criticized her English deliveries and certain production styles. "English deliveries" needs to be fixed; I don't know whether this is pronunciation, phrasing, or a combination. I thought about "delivery of English", and while it's better, it's far from ideal. The next part, "certain production styles" is vague to the point of being puzzling; at least one example should be included to give a sense of what it intended. Rather than "certain", I suggest using a word that gives an idea as to how prevalent this is.
• paragraph 3: reaching atop of the. Here, "atop" is the wrong word: "reaching the top of the" or simply "topping the". Also, whilst five other tracks received a music video: it's odd to read "whilst" in an article that uses American-style dates; I'd suggest "while". The way this is worded, it could easily be interpreted that the five tracks were combined into a single video; this is probably five separate videos ("received" seems an odd choice), and it isn't clear whether this is in addition to the single, or if they were given the video treatment but it didn't.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer; it may turn out to be best to put it back into the reviewing pool, since it will be a full half year since it was nominated as of tomorrow. If someone wants to take over the reviewer, however, they are welcome to do so. The article does need a copyedit, as witness the above examples, so I recommend that the nominator submit this to the Guild of Copy Editors right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)