Jump to content

Talk:Cockiness (Love It)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this review. As this is my fourth or fifth review for this nominator, he should know what to expect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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. See below Good
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good
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. Good
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). See below Good
2c. it contains no original research. Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Good enough for me
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Fine
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Per definition
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. Good
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good
7. Overall assessment. Pending

Comments

[edit]
1a
Lede
  • Why is Mr. Bangladesh linked two times in the same sentence? Also, how are we supposed to refer to him? Is Mr. used every time in reliable sources, or do they shorten to Bangladesh?
    His production name is Mr. Bangladesh, regardless of how critics refer to him. Unlinked Crawford. Aaron You Da One
  • I'd suggest splitting the lede into two paragraphs, one for production and one for the song and reception.
    Done. Aaron You Da One
Background and conception
  • Once again, why is Mr. Bangladesh linked twice?
    Unlinked Crawford. Aaron You Da One
2b
  • What makes DJ Booth a reliable source? Cultureblues?
    DJ Booth is perfectly reliable for GA. The critic, Nathan, has a BA in Journalism and Creative Writing. DJ Booth is not reliable for FA, which this article will not become. Aaron You Da One
  • I don't get how something can be reliable enough for GA but not reliable enough for FA. Regarding the credentials, I have a BA in Indonesian lit, but that doesn't automatically make me a reliable critic for works such as Sitti Nurbaya. I tried looking at RSN, but there was nothing on DJ Booth. Also, what about Cultureblues? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not worried about it passing at this very moment in time lol. I don't mind waiting. Aaron You Da One
  • Not much this time around. Just a couple fixes and we should be good to go
  • Thanks ~~