Talk:Gangnam Style/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ElectroPro (talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next few days, I will give a thorough review of the article,"Gangnam Style",which had-and still- gives me some happiness.Greg Heffley 23:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I'm actually done

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a great piece of work, but not perfect

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
no issues here
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The UN statement in the rest of the world section needs a reference.
Already referenced to this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct reference is actually here, but thanks for pointing it out I've added the correct ref to the article -A1candidate (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
the parodies section doesn't seem so focused, in my opinion.
I believe it to be focused, and that it states the major aspects of them. The parodies section is still linked in with Gangnam Style, and should be included. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
not biased
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
no recent edit wars.
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):
all images are perfectly tagged
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Besides the parodies thing, this article seems GA-ready. i just need a second opinion for the focus

Greg Heffley 00:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC) P.S., feel free to question my decisions.[reply]