Talk:So Happy I Could Die/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'll be reviewing this article from Saturday 2 June 2012. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Ok, let's do this.

Overview

As a whole, the article seems to be complete, it meets all guidelines.

Prose comments

Lead

"sexual themes such as lesbianism and masturbation."

The article body doesn't mention "lesbianism", so it could be considered original research. I recommend to write it as: "Aside from the prevalent ideas of alcoholism, "So Happy I Could Die" [also] explores [several] sexual themes on its lyrics." and leave the specific for the body, and then avoid giving the reader a somehow biased impression of the song. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Done

Composition

"According to Musicnotes.com, a publication of Sony/ATV Music Publishing," >> "According to music sheet published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing on Musicnotes.com"

What is written reads like Musicnotes.com is a publication of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, and what is supposed to be expressed is that Sony/ATV Music Publishing published wheet music of the song on Musicnotes.com. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Done

Reception

"produced varying responses from commentators." >> "received mixed critical response from most music critics" is more clearer and avoids ambiguity. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Minor edits

I broke the reflist into 2 columns for better structuration (m) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the chart table to indtroduce the {{singlechart}} (m) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will move the image to the left and we're almost good to go. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. it's done. Now it looks better. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

A phrase that i felt was OR and trivia was already deleted. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that.

Should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think that "The Ultimate..." should be added to ref No.11. (just a comment)
- Done
Ref No.13 is lacking author, publishdate, work and publisher.
- Done
This is not necessary but Refs No.17 and 18 has the publisher between parentheses, while the rest doesn't. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Now everything should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

Perfect, everything has been fized by now. My verdict:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Final comment: Good job. Incredible article. Just minor issues had to be fixed. Aside that, everything was very well. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.