Talk:Successful (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, this sentence reads odd ---> "American R&B singer and Trey Songz is featured as well as Drake's mentor and labelmate Lil Wayne", I don't think you need the first "and". In the Background section, "After Drake still couldn't settle on the direction for the track" ---> "After Drake still could not settle on the direction for the track", per here. In the Composition and critical reception section, can more be given from the Allmusic review? In the lead, you should probably add that the video won awards, just sayin'.
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Background section, you have "Ready" linked twice, and you only need it linked once. In the Composition and critical reception section, link "MTV News" just once. In the Live performance section, "Songz and Drake performed the song on 106 & Park on September 2, 2009 as a part of a medley" ---> "Songz and Drake performed the song on 106 & Park on September 2, 2009, as a part of a medley", commas after dates, if using MDY.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
~~In Refs. 9, 10, and 11, "Billboard" needs to be in the "work" format of the source, as it is a magazine. Ref. 15 is missing Publisher info. and why is the date italicized?~~
Check.

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:
Are "BallerStatus" and "RapBasement" reliable sources?
I don't see why not? Adabow(complain) 07:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good reason.
Both seem pretty credible, and considering the information found on the sites, particularly the BallerStatus interview, cannot be found anywhere else, I'm assuming idk. For what its worth, BallerStatus has been featured in the Chicago Tribune and was nominated for "Best Lifestyle Website" at the 2007 VH1 Hip-Hop Honors. Candyo32 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IDK, I have a strange feeling about it, but if you say it's been mentioned elsewhere, then I guess. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some stuff, struck out above Adabow(complain) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both Adabow and Candyo for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]