Talk:Lay You Down/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

• No issues.

Lead

• 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

• 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

• 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

• I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Charts

• I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Release history

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

General

• 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

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

Summary

On hold :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the helpful review, your inputs always appreciated. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Passing. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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