Talk:Earth Angel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esprit15d (talk · contribs) 22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reviewing this article, and will be done by tomorrow. Thanks for your patience.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are my comments and suggestions:

All the media (clips, images) look great.
The lead is really great. Good job.
The reference formatting is good, too. I'm especially impressed with the convenience links coupled with dead tree references. The only thing I noticed that needs to be corrected is references that look like this: "85 (19). Billboard. p. 10." THey should actually look like this: "Billboard. 85 (19):10." Please fix those.
Under "Charts and certifications", the references are a little hit and miss. There should be references for all of chart positions.
"Penguins — composed"—There shouldn't be any spaces around an emdash, per English grammar and the policy MOS:EMDASH. Fix all of those.
"It made its another appearance"—remove "its"
"By mid–January"—That should be a regular hyphen, not an endash.
"widely considered one of the first mashup songs,"—I looked up the reference at the end of the entire sentence, and it was too old to support this, since it predates the "mash-up" phenomena. I don't think it even claimed this anyway. Since this statement is an opinion, it needs to be substantiated by a reputable source, per WP:SUBSTANTIATE.
The sections "Cover versions and in popular culture" and "Legacy" both look really good.

I have to commend the editors for really strong work on this article thus far. One of the best I've seen lately. I'm placing this article on hold until the necessary changes are made.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hey there, thanks for reviewing. Some notes:

In the reference formatting, I’m not quite sure how to update those - I used the cite journal template, and it doesn’t appear to matter which order the volume, issue, date, etc are in. If you know how to fix those links let me know how and I’ll go back in and fix them all.
Updated all the charts. When I wrote the article, I wanted to keep things rather consistent in terms of what the charts were titled when the song hit big in the 1950s - for example, there was no Hot 100, but an “Honor Roll of Hits", etc. I’ve gone back to the magazine links for those, but linked all the others to Billboard’s regular site, post-1959 (when it was retitled).

Thanks again! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the references and fixed them. The name of the journal or newspaper should not go in the "publisher" field. The publisher is like the company, like CondeNast for Cosmo Magazine. I changed the field names, and it rendered correctly.
The references for the charts all look good.

Everything else looks good. I'm going to promote this article. Great job!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]