Talk:Lay You Down

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Calvin999 in topic GA Review
Good articleLay You Down 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
July 25, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lay You Down/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

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:  

  ·   ·   ·  


Info box

edit
  • No issues.

Lead

edit
  • You don't mention that Prince is "iconic" in the main body of the article, so this is original research/bias.   Done
  • Removed "iconic".

Background

edit
  • Re-title to Background and composition.  Done
  • Decapitalise "keyboard"  Done
  • You don't need to say Florida for a second time with regard to the mixing.  Done

Critical reception

edit
  • I think you could make a Chart performance section to be honest, or write some prose in the Charts section. When did it debut? What chart position? When did it peaked? How many weeks on the chart? Because this is the only chart it charted on, you can give a bit of trajectory.
  • I don't think there's enough information to make a separate section, seeing how it only appeared on one chart. Also, there's hardly any statistics or information regarding the song's charting, from any reliable sources, besides its charting position and date, meaning I can't really give it much trajectory. Basically I can't add any more to it, due to lack of information (in general).

Credits and personnel

edit
  • I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Charts

edit
  • I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Release history

edit
  • I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!
  • Add a column for the record label.  Done

General

edit
  • Add a picture of Prince maybe?
  • I tried, but it makes the article look awkward, creates a huge white space.
  • Are there no more reviews? Because the article is very short.
  • No that's all the reviews I could find. Like I said, major lack of information.

References

edit
  • Some are missing publishers. FN8, 9 and 10.  Done

Summary

edit

On hold :) Aaron You Da One 11:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, thanks for the helpful review, your inputs always appreciated. Rayman95 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Passing. Aaron You Da One 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
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:  

  ·   ·   ·