Talk:Cockiness (Love It)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be taking this review. As this is my fourth or fifth review for this nominator, he should know what to expect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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

Comments

1a
Lede

Why is Mr. Bangladesh linked two times in the same sentence? Also, how are we supposed to refer to him? Is Mr. used every time in reliable sources, or do they shorten to Bangladesh?
His production name is Mr. Bangladesh, regardless of how critics refer to him. Unlinked Crawford. Aaron • ^{You Da One}
I'd suggest splitting the lede into two paragraphs, one for production and one for the song and reception.
Done. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Background and conception

Once again, why is Mr. Bangladesh linked twice?
Unlinked Crawford. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

2b

What makes DJ Booth a reliable source? Cultureblues?
DJ Booth is perfectly reliable for GA. The critic, Nathan, has a BA in Journalism and Creative Writing. DJ Booth is not reliable for FA, which this article will not become. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

I don't get how something can be reliable enough for GA but not reliable enough for FA. Regarding the credentials, I have a BA in Indonesian lit, but that doesn't automatically make me a reliable critic for works such as Sitti Nurbaya. I tried looking at RSN, but there was nothing on DJ Booth. Also, what about Cultureblues? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Booth is used in other GAs, it's acceptable. I know, I don't understand how something can be reliable for GA and not FA, but that's FAC for you! I'm pretty sure Culture Blues is reliable. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 01:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at RSN. I will add a question about Culture Blues. Of course, for this to pass immediately we could just remove the reviews until the RSN thread is finished. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about it passing at this very moment in time lol. I don't mind waiting. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

Alright, hopefully they don't... well, I've had bad experiences with RSN. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback was that DJ Booth is okay for a review but cultureblues should probably not be used. (here) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed CultureBlues. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not much this time around. Just a couple fixes and we should be good to go

Thanks ~~

Paraphrasing checks fine. Spotchecks on three sources above also fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a wrap. Congrats! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Aaron • ^{You Da One} 00:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]