To ensure this process is objective and transparent I have created a rubric for evaluating GA nominees based wholly on the Wikipedia Good Article guidelines.
In order to achieve GA status, the article must satisfy all the criteria listed below. If any are not met, I will post explanations and links to the article sections needing work. Editors will have the opportunity to improve the article before a final determination is made.
Be forewarned: I am unlikely to approve an article for GA status if it is not a balanced treatment of the subject or if it reads like it was written by a fan. This means no:
Hyperbolic statements about the significance of an artist or his or her work. (ex: "a highly influential rapper", “one of the most influential songwriters in music today” or “one of the most innovative albums of the last decade”). If the article is on a subject whose influence and impact is long established, such as a Bob Dylan or a Chuck D, then these sorts of pronouncements may be appropriate. With newer artists, I will ask that superlatives be toned down.
Attempts to present the opinions of one music critic or musician as consensus opinion.
Resistance to including negative opinions about an artist or album.
Non-neutral descriptions of the artist’s music. It’s ok to talk about instrumentation, effects, lyrics and other compositional elements but no evaluative words like “gorgeous”, “thrilling”, “lush” or “brilliant”.
Because verifying sources is such a time-intensive process, I ask that significant problems with content, style and mechanics be fixed before I tackle citations.
Thanks everyone for your hard work!
Current status
FAIL
Last review update
03:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Y = satisfies this criteria N = needs improvement
User:Candyo32 asked that I fail the article so that should could work with a another reviewer.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
N facts not organized from most to least notable since edit revert--Atlantictire (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have to say I TOTALLY disagree with your vast deletion of all the content of the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize EVERY ASPECT of each section of an article. -- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
First of all, let’s just keep in mind 1.) I’m only trying help and 2.) this is supposed to be fun. I tried to improve the lead by re-organizing the information from most to least notable, making it less wordy, and replacing evaluative language. --Atlantictire (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Largely absent of words to watch = be careful how you characterize things. It's not editorializing (i.e. your opinion) to say critics "praised" something. It is to say they "raved" about something.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Stays focused on topic without going into unnecessary detail =
Sufficient exposition of topic and facts =N
While it’s nice information, the background section isn’t really "background"—just miscellaneous facts. "Background" would be how the collaborations between Ludicris, Minja and the other artists on the track came about, inspiration for the song, and how it was composed and recorded.
Make this section about "background" or work the facts from it into other parts of the article. Either is equally acceptable.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sourcing =
Provides reliable references to all sources of information =
Follows the scientific citation guidelines (science-based article only) =
Represents viewpoints fairly and without bias = I’m going to be checking for both positive and negative reviews by critics from reputable publications. Synopses of both will go in the article. If it turns out the reviews are more negative than positive, or if they’re mixed, then the characterization of the single’s critical reception in the lead will have to be changed.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply