Talk:Breathe (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "'Breathe' is a country pop performed by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift", is "song" missing between "pop" and "performed"? Same section, "...as a promotional single from Swift's second studio album, Fearless ---> "...as a promotional single from Swift's second studio album, Fearless (2008)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Also, cause you have the date of Colbie Caillat's album, only fair.
But the song was never included on one of Colbie's album. Everything else is fixed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. Let's see, you had the year provided for Caillat's album, before I began the review. I said it was only fair that Swift's album had the year as well after I did the review. I never said that "Breathe" was included in Caillat's debut album. Do you understand now?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, "It was released on October 21, 2008 by Big Machine Records" ---> "It was released on October 21, 2008, by Big Machine Records", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the Background section, "'Breathe' was released on October 21, 2008 as a promotional single from Fearless" ---> "'Breathe' was released on October 21, 2008, as a promotional single from Fearless.
Done.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is the issue resolved in regards to User:Nowyouseeme redirecting this article?
He only reverted before I expanded on the article and hasn't reverted since so I don't think there's an actual edit war. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, just checking.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to ipodnano for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]