Talk:Lady Gaga on Twitter/GA1

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Criteria edit

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review edit

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	A well written article, had to correct just one typo.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Please expand the lead. The lead has to summarise the article. The current lead summarises it OK, please just have a mention about 'Twitter content' and 'Controversy and mishaps'. A bit about each.	Fail

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	~~References needed. Example:~~ ~~"The fan campaign is described by the Chicago Tribune as a "jihad against Gaga's Twitter dominance.""~~ That was just an example... More examples: "Some people on Twitter thought this comment was insensitive to people with eating disorders and called her out on this." "Other people on Twitter thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion and Tweeted their support of the singer." "The Twitter controversy extended to the blogosphere with National Eating Disorders Association making a blog post to weigh in on the situation."	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The section 'Fan and celebrity interaction' is unworthy of inclusion and should be removed... It is about nothing...	Fail

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
As much as I hate Justina Beaver, I suppose that the section 'Twitter followers' is half-devoted to the fact that Lady Gaga has more followers than Justina Beaver... It has no mention of the third-highest follower count on Twitter, nor does it have any mention of any other celebrities than Lady Gaga, Justina Beaver and Britney Spears. This comparing should be merged into 'Justin Bieber rivalry'	Fail

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result edit

Result	Notes
Fail	In light of the claims about prose quality and NPOV issues posted in the talk page, the posting of the 'too few opinions' banner and for little edits to the article relating to the review comments during the GA review, I have decided to fail this article. Please feel free to renominate it after the issues have been addressed.

Discussion edit

Please contact me – Plarem ^{(User talk)} on my talk page if you need anything. Well done on writing a short, but good article. Needs to be touched up though... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

FAIL Fail - The article has been failed for the reasons above. Feel free to renominate it after the issues raised here and on the talk page have been addressed. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Additional Notes edit

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]