Talk:Fijación Oral, Vol. 1/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Maine12329 (talk · contribs) 09:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
A few issues with the references but article is overall well written
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
- Replacable primary sources.
Should metrolyrics really be the reference 15 in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs?
reference 15 could be improved. (billboard.biz is defunct) reference 21 does not state the director's name.
- Replacable primary sources.
- a (reference section):
- Ref 15 leads to a archived version of the site which is perfectly acceptable if no substitute can be found. See WP:LINKROT. Erick (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I think that section 2's references can be easily improved. No major issues with the article
- Pass/Fail:
- I corrected the Metrolyrics references and added one for the director. However, the Billboard.biz (archived) reference opened up fine for me. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- regarding that archived reference, I've left a comment on Wikipedia talk:Using the Wayback Machine because I just find it strange that a subscription-only chart is archived and may result in copyright violations. It's not a problem with this Shakira article then. I had thought that perhaps the usual citing of Billboard [1] would suffice but apparently their chart archives for Latin Songs Year-End don't date back to 2005. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Before the website relaunched earlier this year, it had posted Year-end charts up till 2002. The others could be found by searching Billboard magazines on Google Books. Now, only Google Books can be used for earlier years and some of the issues are missing which contain year-end charts. Erick (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't want to interrupt but it seems the article has passed. If so, then one should certainly change the talk page and do all that icon and listing stuff. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Before the website relaunched earlier this year, it had posted Year-end charts up till 2002. The others could be found by searching Billboard magazines on Google Books. Now, only Google Books can be used for earlier years and some of the issues are missing which contain year-end charts. Erick (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- regarding that archived reference, I've left a comment on Wikipedia talk:Using the Wayback Machine because I just find it strange that a subscription-only chart is archived and may result in copyright violations. It's not a problem with this Shakira article then. I had thought that perhaps the usual citing of Billboard [1] would suffice but apparently their chart archives for Latin Songs Year-End don't date back to 2005. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
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.