Talk:Did It On'em

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Did It On'em article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Did It On'em has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 19, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip-hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip-hopHip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in hip-hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in hip-hop, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in hip-hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in hip-hopWikipedia:WikiProject Women in hip-hopTemplate:WikiProject Women in hip-hopWomen in hip-hop
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Did It on 'Em/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hahc!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First comments

Following, minor edits I made:

Lead too long for a single paragraph. Split into three. (done)
I uploaded the cover for the single.
Fixed that charts section.
Italized the album title on 'credits and personnel'
Split the paragraph on 'reception', too long.
Added quotation marks to "best rapping"

Comments

Music video

"Director DJ Scoob Doo revealed to MTV News" ... "In an interview with MTV News on May 31, 2011,"

The first appearance of MTV News should be wikilinked, not the last. Also, it is mentioned twice too closely, creating a redundant use of the word. Finally, the second says "In an interview with" and the first "revealed to". Better if the order is swapped.

"The video..." ... "The video was directed" >> "It was directed" (avoid redundancy)
"The video additionally" >> "Additionally, the clip features..." or "Additionally, it features Minaj"
"Minaj said that the video was a way of saying thanks to her fans" >> "Minaj stated the video was a gesture of gratitude to her fans" sounds better?

Nothing else to note by now. —Hahc 21 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All have been completed, anything else?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing else.

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

—Hahc 21 02:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.