Talk:Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Full review coming in a week. — Simon (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (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. | |
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 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. | |
|
|
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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 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. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
- The sources for the genres in the infobox are missing.
- I removed unsource genres Carbrera (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- "was an adaptation" → present tense here
Done
- Link music critics
- Done
- The "sheet music" source in body does not support the ragga genre
- Done
- I don't think the image in the "Music video" section really helps
- I think it does as it supports her 'Japanese' influence in the video
- Certification table: the endnotes indicating certifications' being based on sales/shipments/unspecified are useless as the notes do not appear in the table
- I don't know how to remove it without messing the references section
- Include an external link to the music video
- Done
The rest of the article: excellent. On hold for seven days. — Simon (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @HĐ: I have replied to all of your suggestions and changed the article accordingly. Please take a look at it when you can. Thanks for the review! Carbrera (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Passing this GAN. For the certification table, you can insert this at the end to omit the endnotes signifying shipments/sales: {{Certification Table Bottom|format=2col}}. Cheers, Simon (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)