Talk:Juxtapozed with U/GA1

GA Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • "The song was initially conceived as a duet but, after both Brian Harvey and Bobby Brown turned the band down, lead singer Gruff Rhys sang the entire track, using a vocoder on the verses to imitate another person." Could this be re-phrased?

   I don't think this is too bad to be honest and I can't think how to phrase it better.

   • "Crtical reaction to the track was generally positive with some reviewers describing it as excellent." This is a bit broad. One of the critics mentions it's one of the group's best, so perhaps that should be placed their instead. Also critical needs to be spelled right here. Done
   • Might want to wiki link Lesser. Done
   • ""Juxtapozed with U" was inspired by the Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson track "Ebony and Ivory" as well as the work of Marvin Gaye and Caetano Veloso and was originally conceived as a duet, with the band approaching both Brian Harvey from East 17, and Bobby Brown to sing alongside Gruff Rhys." This sentence runs on a bit. Perhaps split it into two? Done
   • "Drowned in Sound described the track as the Super Furries best single to date..." Although I usually call them that myself, instead of Super Furries, shouldn't the band referred to by their full name rather then the short form? or perhaps just say "the group's". Done

1. b (MoS):

   • Per WP:SLASH, we probably shouldn't say "Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson". Perhaps this could be re-phrased to "and was inspired by "Ebony and Ivory" by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson" or something. Same again when it appears in the next section. Done
   • Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Numbers_as_figures_or_words, number between zero and nine should be written as words instead of numeric form, like "3 apples". So some numbers in Musical structure will have to be changed.

The link states "The numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out"

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear reliable

   c (OR):

   • Citation #5 doesn't say anything about the track being in A Major.

   The cite is for the time. See below for the key.

   • "The track begins with a drum fill, featuring flanging, before a harp, strings, acoustic guitar and bass join at 2 seconds. An electric guitar joins at 13 seconds playing a melody line." I'm not an expert on song articles, but is this similar to film articles where we assume good faith when taking information the set-up of these songs? Or should this need to be cited as well? Looking at your other GA's for Super Furry Animals songs, it seems to be fine. Just double-checking here.

   Yeah I think it's ok - the source is the song itself in this case.

   • The infobox mentions a specific release date for the single, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Can we cite this?

   Bit of an odd one this - there's lots of conflicting information out there about the actual release date. I've changed to just "July 2001".

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   • It would be good to have ALT tags on these images per WP:ALT.

I've added ALT text but it's very difficult to describe the images!

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • On hold for a week to get these things fixed up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-check

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • References all live, all check out. I assume good faith for print sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear reliable

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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:

   • Great job! I'm going to pass this article. Keep up the great work!