Talk:The Fear (Lily Allen song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead and in the Background section, "Initially, the song "Everyone's At It" was supposed to be released as the lead single from the album", remove "supposed", not very encyclopedic to have. A suggestion in the lead, maybe replacing "famous" with "recognized", since "famous" is a peacock term, just a suggestion. In the Background, maybe adding "British" between "daily" and "tabloid", since you do mention that Allen goes after the British newspapers in the lead. In the Critical reception section, "...but, given her own personal tabloid history (i.e. scandals)", is this ---> "(i.e. scandals}" needed? In the Live performances and promotion section, see if you can spot anything wrong with this sentence ---> "...Allen talked about talked about her struggles with the paparazzi and also premiered the song by performing it live." Same section, "Firday Ross" ---> "Friday Ross". Same section, "In February", what year? Same section, replace "Ellen" with "DeGeneres". Same section, "campain" ---> "campaign".

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, "however, it was ultimately decided on "The Fear" to be released on 26 January, 2009 by Regal Recordings" ---> "however, it was ultimately decided on "The Fear" to be released on 26 January 2009 by Regal Recordings", no need for the comma after January, per here. Do the same in the Music video section. In the Critical reception section, "...and went on to say that it's in fact" ---> "...and went on to say that it is in fact", per here. Since this is a British article, the dates need to be consistent; the Commercial performance section is what I'm referring to. Linking "£" might help.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   NME and The Skinny need to be italicized, since both are magazines.

   Check.

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Are "Music Lovers Group" and "I Like Music" reliable sources?

   Check.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Lily Allen - The Fear.jpg needs a lower resolution.

   Check.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I resolved all problems except the one with the two sources. I Like Music seems like a good source to me, though the other one looks like a self-published source. I will look for substitutes for both of them, I hope I can find somehting. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've substituted both sources. Hope everything is good now and thank you for the lovely review :) --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is in order. Alright, thank you to 12345abcxyz20082009 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)