GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) Aaron You Da One 01:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I will be taking back my original role of reviewing this article. Aaron You Da One 01:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Background and composition

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]

Chart performance

[edit]

Music video (both sections)

[edit]

Live performances

[edit]

Covers, samples, and media usage

[edit]

Track listings

[edit]

Charts and certifications

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reference mistakes I can see are dead links, a mix of date formats, missing dates and access dates, missing and wrong work parameters, and missing and wrong publisher parameters. (FN133 is missing both).

Summary

[edit]

I'm really sorry, but in addition to the large amount of mistakes in the references, there are some cases of WP:OR and prose issues, I'm failing this article. Spend some time going through each section throughly, and perhaps read them out loud to yourself, as what you have written sounds different to just being read. Aaron You Da One 11:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·