Jump to content

Talk:Watch n' Learn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWatch n' Learn has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 25, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to one reviewer, the reggae drum fill in "Watch n' Learn" originates from Bob Marley's 1983 single "Buffalo Soldier"?

DYK nomination

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Watch n' Learn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed against

[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  10. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well-written:

[edit]
  • "Upon the release of Talk That Talk, due to digital downloads "Watch n' Learn" charted in lower regions on the singles chart in South Korea. It debuted on the Gaon International Chart at number 89 on November 26, 2011, with sales of 6,049 digital copies" <-- What is this chart? The sentence could be more clear. Do these things relate or are they two different charts? Is Gaon International Chart one that ONLY includes digital sales or does it include traditional sales and radio play?

Factually accurate and verifiable:

[edit]
  • [ "Watch n' Learn is a song recorded by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna, for her sixth studio album Talk That Talk (2011)." This statement in the lead is not mentioned in the article as it pertains to Barbadian. It needs to be sourced in the body of the article some places. Ditto with sixth album. This fact in the lead is not in the body. --LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a manual of style you can link to that says that? Facts need to be verifiable and it is still a fact. If there is manual of style consensus which contradicts this, will let it pass. Otherwise, no. --LauraHale (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source for what? That the song was included in Talk That Talk or that Rihanna is Barbadian? Lol, I don't if there is such a consensus for that, but when we work on music articles we never make that. Try any song you want. Plus, I also gave you some featured articles that are written in similar way. — Tomica (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source verification spot check

Broad in its coverage

[edit]

Neutral

[edit]

I've read it three times. I feel like it reads as a bit promotional at time, but I'm not certain how this can be avoided if the critical reception has largely been positive and there wasn't much drama in creating the song.

Stable

[edit]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

[edit]

"*There is no cover for the song. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns addressed

[edit]

Passing. --LauraHale (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]