Talk:Everyone Nose (All the Girls Standing in the Line for the Bathroom)/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Zeagler in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- The "Critical reception" section could almost be a list: Reviewer A said "___". Reviewer B said "___". Etc. The only thing you've done is grouped them into good and bad reviews. It would work better if you made statements about trends in the reviews and then backed them up with quotes; tell the story of the critical reception, as it were. (See Lions (album) for an example of how I did it.) If you have access to Factiva or LexisNexis (try your university or local library), you'll find about another fifty reviews of the song.
- The "Music video" section needs an introductory sentence and a description of the video's concept.
- "The song produced a remix featuring Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, and Pusha T and was available as an iTunes and Zune Marketplace bonus track." – 'produced a remix ... that was available', right? And available with what? The purchase of Seeing Sounds?
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- I know very little about the song/recording itself after reading this article, except for its lyrical bent. Details about the recording session would be helpful. (Again, consult Factiva or LexisNexis if you've exhausted all your online sources.) And if no description of the song can be found from someone directly involved in its creation, some general descriptions from critics would be fine.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
"The song was generally well-received by critics despite its subject of cocaine use." – This implies a view that lyrics revolving around drug use should beget poor reviews.
- 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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Covering the missing 'major aspects' will be difficult, and rewriting the "Critical reception" section won't be trivial...so I'll give you as much time as you need so long as progress is being made. —Zeagler (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)