Talk:Yeah! (Usher song)/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Reassessor: Till I Go Home (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• Red-link for Robert McDowell.
• Remove certification because of inconsistency (since there are many more certifications).

Lead

• as the lead single from his hit fourth studio album Confessions -> "hit"? POVish and unnecessary. Needs year of release after album e.g. Confessions (2005)
• Again, red-link.
• The song features vocals from Lil Jon and Ludacris. The song was remixed with Tego Calderón. I can start to see many truncated sentences.
• Billboard needs to be in italics.
• the longest-running of 2004, and its huge success added to Usher's hit success that year. -> longest-running what? "Usher's hit success that year" is kind of unnecessary to the article in question.
• one of the fastest selling hip hop songs ever -> this needs clarification, and should be reworded (sounds POVish)
• The song ranks second on the... -> Should be in past tense
• Remove reference in the lead.
• Usher performed "Yeah!" at the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2008 as runway soundtrack. -> grammar sounds poor but I may be wrong
• "The song" is repeating a lot in the lead which needs fixing.
• The lead is just one big bulky paragraph, maybe separating into two?

Background and composition

• Colloquial terms such as went back to the studio -> returned to the studio
• For the third time, red-link needs fixing
• How many beats per minute does it move?
• Clarification needed in the sample caption.

Reception

• The songs rights were released to the creators of Glee for the final song for their season two finale. It was sung by the Crawford County Girls Choir, a competing group in the National Show Choir Competition. -> songs is gramatically incorrect, this sentence needs verification with a source

Chart performance

• Seven weeks later, it peaked on the chart at number one -> "on the chart" is redundant
• for reaching one million shipments -> awkward prose
• "Yeah!" became the 2004's best-performing single in the United States -> doesn't make sense.
• The single ranks at number -> again, needs to be past tense. "at" is unnecessary
• Internationally, "Yeah!" received similar responses, topping many charts. -> awkward prose
• The single reached number 1 in the Australia Singles Top 50 -> "1" should be in words, "in the" is incorrect, "Top 50" is unnecessary and should be replaces with "chart".
• Instead of listing the actual chart names (e.g. Austria Singles top 75) you could write "on the singles charts in ...."
• Overall, the single charted to different charts worldwide for a year, early in 2004 to early in 2005 -> awkward prose, doesn't make sense
• The single was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for selling 70,000 units -> wrong, it is based on shipments not sales
• At the 2004 Year Ender charts -> "at"? "year ender"? huh?
• It was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. -> needs verification with a source

Music video

• The treatment was accompanied of how Usher wanted to be portrayed in the video, particularly showcasing his dance moves. -> this appears gramatically incorrect or awkward
• I noticed that it doesn't have much structure to it, there aren't subsections like "background" and "sypnosis".

Track listings

• Why only UK? I'm sure it was released in many other countries.
• Needs to be sourced

Charts

• The "year end charts" for UK and US are unsourced.
• The certifications table: "sales certified" doesn't make sense. The "date" column is unnecessary.

References They are in quite bad condition:

• ref. 1 -> needs publisher, date and access date
• ref. 2 -> MTV News should not be in italics, the publisher is Viacom.
• ref. 3 -> needs date, and the same issue as ref. 2
• ref. 5 -> what is "indswept Holdings"? The publisher is Sony ATV Music Publishing
• ref. 6 -> same as 2 and 3
• ref. 7 & 8 -> same as 2 and 3
• ref 9 & 10 -> dead links
• ref 13 -> dead link
• ref 15 -> publisher is Rovi Corporation
• ref. 20 -> same as 2, 3, 7, 8
• ref. 24 -> same as above
• ref. 30 -> ARIA should be in brackets
• ref. 31 -> publisher shouldn't be in italics
• ref. 32 -> same as 2, 3, etc.
• ref. 56 -> write full publisher + not in italics
• ref. 57-67 -> publishers need fixing
• ref. 70 -> publisher is Recording Industry Association of New Zealand
• ref. 71-74 -> publishers need fixing.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The article looks okay at first glance, but after thoroughly going through everything I can see there are many issues. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I notified the editor who promoted the article about the GAN, but no attempt has been made to fix the issues. Sorry but that's a delist. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)