Talk:You Reign/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Failing because of the prose and reference issues. I'll start with the prose, or the lack of it. There simply is not enough information, it would take a lot more for this article to qualify as a Good Article. There are basic grammar issues, such as commenting that the song " is another worship song, why is the quotation mark not next to "is"? And why have apostrophes been used instead of quotation marks? There are one line sentences by themselves as well as one sentence sub-sections, which looks very weak. There is no Credits section, which is a basic must have for song article. Why is there a bullet point for the recording info in the Info Box?
There is a major issue of over linking, specifically Billboard and Prometheus Global Media. You only need to link the first instance. Musicnotes URL is not needed per consensus. And the references should be spilt into two columns.
Article is under prepared with a lack of information and basic mistakes. There are a lot of sources for such little prose, you should be able to expand the sections to be honest or find new information. The layout should be re-worked to make it look more presentable and not lacking in nearly every way. There are no pictures or an audio file to illustrate your points, I'm sure the latter of which could be done. Until that happens, I don't think this article could ever qualify for GA status. It doesn't meet GA requirements at the moment. I can't put on hold because I don't think this article would be able to be improved to the degree it needs to in such a short amount of time. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)