Jump to content

Talk:Maroon 5/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 05:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  1. "They toured with Dashboard Confessional in their world tour and on March 28, 2008, they began touring with OneRepublic, Brandi Carlile and Ry Cuming." remains without a WP:IC from a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    information Note:- I added a new reference regarding that, I think it's reliable--Chamith (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article still has at least one dead link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed-Added a new link--Chamith (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IORR.org, 411mania, and acharts.us continue to be used as sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Resolved-Removed those sources and provided reliable sources--Chamith (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minor note, there's also some inconsistent date formatting: British, American, and YYYY-MM-DD. I don't particularly care which is used, as long as the choice of British or American corresponds to the article's dialect choice, but one needs to be picked. Tezero (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:- I don't think that would be a major problem. Anyway I will work on it after fixing other issues--Chamith (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XNThere is still one bare URL.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some sources that don't appear to be WP:RS. bestuff.com?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to be a dead link.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


WP:LEAD
  • My first thought on the LEAD is that at 3364 characters of readable prose and 4 paragraphs it is extremely long for an article that is only 23238 characters long. We can revisit this if the article does not expand while under review. However, given the current size of the article, I think the LEAD should be 2000-2500 characters and if the article doubles in size, the LEAD still should not be much more than 3000 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that every element of the LEAD is a summary of a more detailed portion of the prose below. If something is in the LEAD and not the main body correct this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Divided into two categories-Chamith (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrinking the LEAD down to 882 characters is certainly not the answer. Like I said for its current length, it should probably be 2000-2500 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, note that sectioning off part of the LEAD is not the solution. Now, the article starts with stuff that is not the introduction. The article should start with formation of the band like it did before. The background is not a 2nd LEAD section. That content is malplaced. The LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the rest of the article. Return all content to the LEAD that is a summary of the main body. Then we can work to either fill out the main body more or pare down the LEAD. Moving summary content from the lead to an introductory section that also summarizes the rest of the article is wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:: I moved some content from the LEAD which I think belongs to 2014-present subsection.--Chamith (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1994–2002: Kara's Flowers and the formation of Maroon 5

 Done-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Bot fixed it Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done- It was in 1997, the book provided in citation supports this.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Actually his name was mistyped there, I fixed it and linked to the correct page. It mentions about Dirty Dancing which are hit songs.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: -Should I mention about the hit songs inside those brackets? the list is so long so I thought it mightn't be necessary.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Chamith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN It remains ungrammatical and incorrectly punctuated. You seem to know how to punctuate songs elsewhere in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Sorry I missed it. Added punctuation
Red XN Still wrong. Semicolon should be a comma, I think. Songs are not italicized. Only albums are.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Done it exactly the way you requested--Chamith (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Can you tell me what you think I requested? It was not this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really confused about this one, I keep trying and always end up failing. Could you again tell me what's need to be done?--Chamith (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Songs appear in quotes while albums and movies are italicized.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The semicolon after John DeNicola should be an unspaced —, a spaced – or at least a comma (my preference is the former).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think I did what you requested--Chamith (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XNI've got all day (and the next day and the next day).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I'm sorry, what? Anyway could you please check again. I did few changes--Chamith (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this got struck before, but it is now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed-Chamith (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-I read the specific page of the book provided in citation and re-wrote the sentence according to that.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed- Couldn't find what they mean by influences there.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed- I looked up for this and came up with nothing, there is no mention of what his previous job was. So I tried searching for the magazine mentioned in the citation. I couldn't find anything related to the subject.-Chamith (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely-That part is written by someone using his own words. and there are no sources to prove them because they might are subject-specific common knowledge? Fans know that Maroon 5 has a tight relationship with Matt Wallace and also by reading the list of artist they have toured during that period it's obvious that they might have at least toured for 1 year?--Chamith (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed-No sources found, removed original research--Chamith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN no you didn't.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Re-checked and removed--Chamith (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Please show me what text you removed with your edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one--Chamith (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2002–06: Songs About Jane and Dusick's departure
 Done--Chamith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2006–08: It Won't Be Soon Before Long
 Done- no of cities were mentioned in the ref--Chamith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Chamith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2008–11: Hands All Over
 Done--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XNStill seems awkward to me. What was wrong with original suggestion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Red XNDid you even change anything?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Yes, I used the suggestion you gave to me "During an interview Levine has stated that he believes the band is reaching"-->"Levine stated that he believed the band was reaching"--Chamith (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Search the article for the phrase "Levine stated that he believed the band was reaching".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved oops my bad--Chamith (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN obviously some content is missing if it was re-released and we only have one date. Please explain what is going on here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the album Hands all over was re-released to support their new single Moves like Jagger. I re-wrote the sentence--Chamith (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. so now the date for the release of MLJ is now glaringly missing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you have to describe the re-release? Where songs added/changed/removed? What was the date?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this support for the reader. He won't be looking here for that content so put it in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added re-release date of the album, official release of the single is mentioned in the following sentence.--Chamith (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN It is my understanding that televised premieres and release dates are often different. I think you still need to include the release date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN As I said above you need to describe the re-release. You also need to clarify whether the addition of MLJ was the only change to the album on its re-release. I think you should clarify the album's commercial success upon release and re-release. (Sales totals, Sales certifications, and chart positions). This whole re-release is sort of mysterious and it is your job to clarify what happened.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added chart position, sales totals upon the release date and included actual release date.--Chamith (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was released with the album Hands All Over on June 12, 2011.But the first live performance was held on June 21, 2011, so it's considered as the release date. But like you said stage performance releases and official releases are two different things. Anyhow I'm not sure how to add this to the article--Chamith (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought songs had two release dates: sales release date (date the song appears in stores or online sales outlets), video release date (date the song is posted at youtube, vevo or whereever). Do you have either a sales release date or a video release date for the song?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger:

June 21, 2011-Sales release date
Aug 9, 2011-Official Video release-[1]
The source you gave (which is a questionable RS) says "Published on Aug 9, 2011: UK release: Sept 5th - Pre-order the new album "Hands All Over" including 'Moves Like Jagger' on iTunes now: (link omitted) Music video by Maroon 5 performing Moves Like Jagger. (C) 2011 A&M/Octone Records #VEVOCertified on April 16, 2012." How does that support either of the dates you have mentioned?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it supports that the initial release date is June 21. As this article (Maroon 5) already states and like Moves Like Jagger article says the release date is June 21, 2011--Chamith (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How so?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK now I'm really confused, Amazon says that the release date is June 11,2011. That means the release date on Moves Like Jagger is wrong? I extracted the release date from that article--Chamith (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN its≠it's.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
 Resolved--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN September, 2011 should not have a comma.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Why is the 2011 outside of the VS link? You should pipe it too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN something is wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed
 Done--Chamith (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2012–14: Carmichael's hiatus and Overexposed
 Done
 Yes-Yes it does but there aren't any mention of seasons in the specific section.
Checked- That's what the source says--Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YOu have not stated the tie clearly for the reader. Was it tied for the longest run? The two songs surely were not tied in the chart for 9 weeks in a row. Please clarify what the tie was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added details to clarify what the tie was--Chamith (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "believed to be" does not need to be included if you have a source, as you do. The source does not support "Its believed to be the longest tie for "most number of weeks in the number 1 spot" on the Hot 100 Chart in 2012." It supports "The two songs had the most number of weeks in the number 1 spot on the Hot 100 Chart in 2012."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Added a new ref--Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Which one. I don't see any.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Sorry I think I misspoke, Anyway now I have added refs and removed unsourced content which I couldn't sources-Chamith (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
information Note:-Do you want to me link The Voice to the 2nd season-Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is talking about 3 or more different seasons of the Voice. (with more possible relevance in the future if Levine continues to judge). I think each time you mention the voice you should link to the proper season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
✓-Linked to specific seasons--Chamith (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014–present: V, the return of Carmichael and worldwide tour
minus Removed-Violates WP:CRYSTAL and isn't official confirmed by any verifiable/trust-able sources--Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way you have removed it makes the following sentence into a bit of a puzzle.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please tell me which sentence is it? I'm unable to find any errors in that section--Chamith (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "On April 15, 2014, Jesse Carmichael confirmed that his hiatus from the band was complete and he reunited with the band in time to record for the album" you talk about the album. However, you have not yet named the album in this section. Having removed the prior content the album is now a mystery. You need to replace "the album" with either "V" or "the studio album that would become V".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album V also reached number one on the US Billboard 200 chart." When?
information Note:- the reference says september 2014, No specific date given.
Red XN This is an easy thing to reasearch. Find a source that has the proper chart date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done- Found a source and added the date--Chamith (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-Yes and added-Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done-re-written-Chamith (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN Except you have screwed up the date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed--Chamith (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style and influences
minus Removed--Chamith (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved--Chamith (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Band members
 Later--I have to take a short Wikibreak. But still I can do minor edits. I will do a reference search and add them as soon as possible. Is it OK for you?--Chamith (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 In progress--I'm back and I will do a reference search for this section, I guess it will take a while. But you can still continue reviewing other section.-Chamith (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer commentary: I can see this article has made progress, but I'm afraid it doesn't meet 2c or 3a of GA criteria right now. There is no commentary from critics on their music. This can be added in "Musical style and influences". The "awards and nominations" section needs to be expanded AND referenced. I'd consider renaming it "achievements" and talk about their commercial success, such as record sales and how many #1 songs they have. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: I understand, It's quite true. I expanded achievements section a little and added more references. But like SNUGGUMS said commentary from critics should be added. I'll do a research and do whatever I can. I have exams coming up, so I'm afraid it might take a little longer.--Chamith (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the section to "achievements" as SNUGGUMS proposed. And I expanded that section. Furthermore I added critic reviews on their music but not under "Musical style and influences". Instead I added them to specific section (Albums in History)--06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
no No action I think I did everything you requested. Is there anything else need to be done? If so I'm happy to fix them and improve this article further. Or is this GA review on hold?.--Chamith (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some things I've found.....
  • "On April 1, 2013, the band announced that they will headline the 12th Annual Honda Civic Tour with special guest, Kelly Clarkson"..... the tense needs to be updated since the tour has ended.- Done
  • Info on music videos belongs in respective song articles, not here- Done
  • I'm not sure if "Charities" should be in list form - -Question? Shall I break it down into paragraphs?
  • Many problems with references.....
  • Some are dead
  • FN2: Should read "The Gleaner" and link to Gleaner Company- checkY
  • FN's 3 and 4: reliable?- Fixed Removed unreliable sources and added another reliable source
  • FN7: "Billboard" should be italicized and capitalized- checkY
  • FN9: Should read MTV News or MTV and not be italicized- checkY
  • FN11: Missing work parameter- checkY
  • FN22: Metacritic should be capitalized- checkY
  • FN26: Missing title, and should read "MTV" instead of "mtv.tv"- checkY
  • FN27: See above comments for Billboard/MTV. Also, should read "Metro Radio" instead of "metroradio", "bmi" should be "BMI".- checkY
  • FN38: "latimes" should be removed, and Los Angeles Times should be italicized- checkY
  • FN49: IMDb is not a reliable source- Fixed Removed Imdb ref and cited another source
  • FN51: Daily Mail is also not reliable- Fixed removed Daily Mail source and added another source
  • FN54: "Billboard" should be italicized and not have quotation marks around it- checkY
  • FN61: reliable?-Question? I don't see why. As their official site says they bottle and distribute Snapple products. (Mentioned at the bottom of the page)
  • FN62: YouTube is generally discouraged, especially when high-quality secondary sources are available- checkY
  • FN63: See note on FN9- checkY
  • FN66: Should just read "Time" in italics, as it is from Time (magazine)- checkY
  • FN68: Same as FN62- checkY
  • FN69: "Wetpaint" is not reliable- checkY
  • FN70: Same as FN's 62 and 68
  • FN71: Same as FN11- checkY
  • FN72: "idolatore" → "Idolator"- checkY
  • FN75: MTV is missing- checkY
  • FN76: Should read "Capital FM"- checkY
  • FN77: last.fm is not reliable- checkY
  • FN79: Same as FN7- checkY
  • FN82: Remove ".com"- checkY
  • FN83: "mtv" should be "MTV"- checkY
  • FN84: Blogspot is not reliable-  Fixed removed blogspot and added a reliable source,
  • FN85: Italicize "Billboard"- checkY
  • FN86: Should read "New York Daily News" rather than "NY Daily News"- checkY
  • FN87: not the best of sources
  • FN88: "idolator.com" should read "Idolator"- checkY
  • FN90: "nytimes" should read "The New York Times" in italics- checkY
  • FN91: What makes this reliable?- Fixed added a reliable source and changed the details according to it,
  • FN96: Not quite the best of sources- information Note: Multiple sources are available to claim that part. If it's unnecessary I can remove it. But there is nothing wrong with keeping it, right?.
  • FN98: Same as FN's 7 and 79- checkY Fixed all Billboard parameters
  • FN101: Should read NME in italics- checkY
  • FN102: How is this reliable?
  • FN's 108 and 110: Same as FN's 7, 79, and 98- checkY
  • FN114: Only the italicized form of "Billboard" should be present- checkY
  • FN116: Same as FN's 7, 79, and 98- checkY
  • FN's 117 and 118: Not sure about these
  • FN121: Same as FN87- checkY
  • FN122: Same as FN's 62, 68, and 70-checkY--Chamith (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So TonyTheTiger is there anything else that's preventing this article from being a GA?--Chamith (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure no problem TonyTheTiger. Take your time. Enjoy your tour and rest of the vacation.--Chamith (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two issues on the footnotes now:
  1. Eliminate the ALL CAPS, such as FN18.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am also a bit puzzled by the compound footnoes (26 and 104). 104 is definitely unnecessary as 3 footnotes for a fact is acceptable. 26 could likely be reformatted to be more helpful to the reader with an individual footnote for each band following the proper comma.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Chamith (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: I think you didn't notice that I fixed those issues.--Chamith (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. sorry. Now, we can look at the WP:LEAD. It is not such a good summary of the band, IMO. Since the band has had 3 number 1 songs why not mention them all in the LEAD. You might also mention that V achieved number 1. Also, the final paragraph should not be a single sentence paragraph. Either merge or expand the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added information about those three songs, merged the last paragraph and did some copyediting.--Chamith (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "able to beat Psy's "Gangnam Style"" seems a bit detailed for the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll remove it.--Chamith (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the hoops. I am glad to pass this finally.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK. Thanks a lot for your extensive review and for passing this.--Chamith (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [1]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maroon_5/GA2&oldid=1089053673"