Talk:Zou Bisou Bisou/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Hi! I'll be reviewing this article. --Hahc21 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Round 1

Lead

• Fisrt of all, references must never be present on the Lead (exceptional cases might appear) per WP:LEAD.
• "is a 1960 single that Gillian Hills claims was her first single that summer as "Zou Bisou Bisou"". Bad prose, she claimed? That summer? Which summer? 1960? --Hahc21 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• "and that was released under the same name ten hours after its performance on the March 25, 2012 Mad Men's season 5 premiere episode "A Little Kiss" on the AMC Channel." This makes confusion. The song is from 1960 and was released in 2012?. Clarification needed.
• "Jessica Paré performed the song on the show as Megan Draper in a scene set in summer 1966." Bad prose.
• "Her on-air performance was lip synced to a prior recording". Bad prose. This statement should be merged with the prior one.
• "The French recording was produced by George Martin and sung in English by Sophia Loren." The french recording?
• "Although most sources associate the origins of the song with Hills, New York claims the songwriting credits make it more likely that Loren's version, which was titled "Zoo Be Zoo Be Zoo", was the original." Apart from bad prose, it confuses.
• "Slate's David Haglund notes that Hills' version is the "best-known version"." Bad prose.

On resume. Every phrase form the lead is not well-written.

Production

• And so on, bad prose on every statement. Also, it seems like its written as an advertisement, and biased.

Other issues

• There's no release history
• Amazon can only be a reliable source on Release history or statements related to the release of the song. Anything else os unreliable.

Verdict

I'd recomment that if the nominator/contributor hasn't finished the article, work on it on his/her sandbox before moving it into the main namespace. Also, get the article peer reviewed or copyedited to avoid bad prose and prepare it for the GA process.

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:

Final comments: Another quick fail. Only on prose this article fails the process. Also, some bad sources, some bad organization. I recomment mostly getting the article copyedited and peer reviewed before renominating. --Hahc21 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.