Talk:Grenade (song)/GA1

GA Review

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) 17:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Review

• There are multiple dead links and connection issues, which is worrying
• Info box: Pop should be capitalised as it's the first one
• Apply the flat list formula to the parameters which have more than one name listed
• It's a → Informal/not encyclopaedic
• a Pop, R&B → a Pop and R&B
• produced by Mars himself along with his production team, The Smeezingtons and written by the latter with Brody Brown, Claude Kelly, and Andrew Wyatt. → This is quite sloppy
• The song was developed from an unreleased track with similar lyrical themes played by record producer Benny Blanco to Mars. → So it was given to him?
• was supposed to be handed in. → Needs better phrasing
• heart got broken → heart was broken
• album's second single from the album →Spot the mistake
• released by Atlantic and Elektra. → Sounds like two people without the 'Records' included
• most critics, with reviewers → Really?!
• with reviewers praising the vocals and emotional lyrics of the heartbreak song, while its melody was lauded, being called "haunting piano" and "creamy". → Structurally, this is a mess.
• Some critics considered the song one of the stand-out tracks on Doo-Wops & Hooligans. → This is obvious from the previous sentence
• the top spot number one → Seriously?
• The single reached the top spot number one in fifteen different countries, including the United States, where it became Mars' third number one single on the Billboard Hot 100, spending three non-consecutive weeks and topped the Canadian Hot 100, also for three non-consecutive weeks. → Again, structurally this is really bad
• Some of the song's promotion was due to the release of the music video, → Poor phrasing
• Some of the song's promotion was due to the release of the music video, shot by director Nabil Elderkin, through MTV and MTV.com, on November 19, 2010. → Even worse. There's no flow and it doesn't make sense
• The song was covered by several artists. → The song has been covered by a variety of performers.

These issues are from the lead alone, and I haven't even listed everything wrong with the lead. It needs to be completely re-written. Looking through the rest of the article, here are from glaring errors:

• Background and conception, the block quote shouldn't have quotation marks because it is already indented
• Same again in the Production and writing section
• Composition and lyrics section, the Spin source doesn't mention any genres for "Grenade", and Music Notes is not good enough for genres, because they say all songs are Pop and R&B to some extent.
• According to the album notes, the song contains elements → This makes it sound dubious.
• The sheet music published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing shows that → Boring to read
• Lyrically, the song "Grenade" → use either 'the song' or 'Grenade', not both.
• Elsewhere as a section title?
• The prose in the Track listing section should be further up in Background or similar
• The tables all need to be marked up for WP:ACCESS with the shaded grey column.
• Chart table says 2010-2012, so 2010 peaks, 2011 peaks, and 2012 peaks should be in separate tables
• The year end tables are different widths
• Release history, don't group Germany and UK into one
• Ref 4: Digital Spy should not be italics. Happens again further down
• Ref titles shouldn't have bolded words
• iTunes should not be italics
• Or 4Music
• Or Idolator
• Or MTV News
• You use MTV Networks and MTV News, keep it consistent with one

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

I'm sorry but I can't pass this article in such an under-prepared state and poor condition. I knew that the check links returning so many problematic links meant that it would be under-prepared before I even started reading. Needs a complete overhaul.  — Calvin999 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Thank you for taking time reviewing this article, I appreciate the effort. Secondly, you could let me and other users address the issues before failing it, most people have one week if the nominator doesn't reply then yes fail the article. I have seen that other user as addressed several of the issues you mentioned and I will address some of the others that have yet to be taken care of and I will nominate it again. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• As the reviewer, I don't have to give you 7 days, and I don't have to put it on hold. As I said, I haven't even mentioned everything which needs sorting. This article shouldn't have been nominated yet in the first place.  — Calvin999 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your conclusions and advises almost everything has been address, just missing some dead links.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)