Talk:Teenage Whore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

There is a single image, and that meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No section is over long or too detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neutral in tone and presentation. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meets MoS. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No OR noticed. Statements matched sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Article feels a bit thin. Could you do a little more research and build it up. It does seem to be a song that attracts attention. Here's some potential sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

A couple of cites are required. Marked with tags in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Decent little article on an early song by Hole. Probably a little thin considering how much the song is mentioned in reliable sources, and there are a couple of statements that need sourcing. Other than that, no problems. On hold to allow those two issues to be looked into. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator nudged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not passed

Concerns regarding citing not addressed, and no contact from nominator. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]