Talk:Red Hot Kinda Love/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'm honestly a bit conflicted, and would like to hear back from the nominator on this one. It felt a bit repetitive at times, but a little bit of reviewer editing fixed much of that. I'm a bit worried it's over-dependent on quotes, and that it's rather choppy and disorganised because of this. Getting someone to come in and give it a good copyedit would likely fix this issue.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I don't see major issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No problems
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Honestly, there's a few cases which you should probably move to a better link - Yahoo! Music is not a good source to be using for an Associated Press article, as Yahoo! Music is an unreliable source outside of what it takes from reliable sources. But the sources all look good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not much to say. If anything, it sticks a little too much to the sources, using quotes for everything.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Somewhat narrow topic, but largely addressed well enough. However, this was a major single, so surely it charted on more than just the South Korean charts?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Per my comment to point 1, it might go into excessive quotations from reviews, without sufficient selection, but I'm not sure about this. It doesn't feel like the material from the reviews is organised, or particularly well-selected.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Definitely.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable enough. No edit wars or anything like that.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	6 as a whole. .	The actual requirement for 6 is "6. Illustrated, if possible, by images" It's not illustrated at all. Not even the standard fair use image of the cover.
	7. Overall assessment.	A good start, but not quite there.

• Don't really like these tables for reviewing, it's difficult to reply to things. I don't think its that quote like or "excessive", I combine them with prose. There is nothing wrong with Yahoo! Music, it's not an unreliable source. No, this was/is not a single, therefore for a song I would actually say it is quite broad in its coverage. If it had charted in other countries on other charts, then I would have obviously included it in the chart table. I will add a picture, but I'm not sure why you are talking about cover image, as there is no artwork, it's not a single.  — AARON • ^TALK 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article on Yahoo! Music is reliable, but it's an Associated Press article that is available from multiple sources, and as Yahoo! Music also has a large user-created part, it might be better to google a phrase in the article and change the link, just to make it look better. As it's not a single (I presumed it was a s it charted and has so much info available) that overrides many of the issues. Let me think about the quotes, and reread it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. No, several songs charted when the album was released, but only "Your Body" and "Just a Fool" are singles as of yet.  — AARON • ^TALK 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sure. This looks pretty good. I did notice a bit of a name-of-page snarl, though - Red Hot Kinda Love directs to the album the song comes from, which means this page should be there. I've put it on Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Technical_requests, and will promote as soon as its moved, since I suspect it'll save a lot of time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. They will just do a delete and move.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You can promote it before the page is moved you know.  — AARON • ^TALK 00:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but I want to make sure this page gets moved, and so on, and, perhaps more importantly, that everything gets linked to the page's final name. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's done now :)  — AARON • ^TALK 19:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And, unless I screwed it up, it should now be promoted. Good work! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, thanks.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)