This article has numerous problems, one of which (#3) will not easily be resolved; thus the quick-fail. Breakdown by criterion:
1. Well written
Not written by a native speaker of English and so needs a copyedit.FIXED THANKS TO YOU
Well, I just fixed the easy things. I'll do a more serious copyedit when all the other criteria have been met.
Numerous problems with
WP:MOS (although not the ones required for GA)THEN ITS NOT IMPORTENT
Not important? Again I ask, are you here to help create a good encyclopedia for everyone or to rack up 's? Anyway, I took care of most of the MOS problems. Please go back and look at what I fixed so you can avoid these problems in the future.
I have to question reference #2, seeing as how it's been added by
Be Black Hole Sun for many Bryan Adams song articles, and it's used in the exact same way every time. Done
Your new reference doesn't support the argument, either. Even if you find a reliable source that says the same thing word for word, the sentence is meaningless. The reader will infer the song is popular/recognizable from the chart info. Done
3. Broad in its coverage
All I've learned about the song is a little bit about how the writers came up with a couple of lyrics. Done
Far from being "done". See the "Composition" and "Background and recording" sections of
In Bloom for the kind of info that would make for a good article. It may not be easy to find, but for a hit song like this, I'd be surprised if it weren't out there.
Yeah the guy that wrote that used books, i use the internet.
There is nothing here about the single except chart positions.WHAT DO YOU MEAN'
Where was the single released? In what format(s)? What are the track listings? Anything interesting about the b-sides (were they previously unreleased, are they different versions of released songs, etc.)? Done
Only one critic has been quoted (and the quote is not being used to support any argument, it's just thrown out there).Only one critic can be found and Done
Cutting it down is a good start, but it's still not being used to support any argument. And I bet other reviews can be found...
This article has numerous problems, one of which (#3) will not easily be resolved; thus the quick-fail. Breakdown by criterion:
1. Well written
Not written by a native speaker of English and so needs a copyedit.FIXED THANKS TO YOU
Well, I just fixed the easy things. I'll do a more serious copyedit when all the other criteria have been met.
Numerous problems with
WP:MOS (although not the ones required for GA)THEN ITS NOT IMPORTENT
Not important? Again I ask, are you here to help create a good encyclopedia for everyone or to rack up 's? Anyway, I took care of most of the MOS problems. Please go back and look at what I fixed so you can avoid these problems in the future.
I have to question reference #2, seeing as how it's been added by
Be Black Hole Sun for many Bryan Adams song articles, and it's used in the exact same way every time. Done
Your new reference doesn't support the argument, either. Even if you find a reliable source that says the same thing word for word, the sentence is meaningless. The reader will infer the song is popular/recognizable from the chart info. Done
3. Broad in its coverage
All I've learned about the song is a little bit about how the writers came up with a couple of lyrics. Done
Far from being "done". See the "Composition" and "Background and recording" sections of
In Bloom for the kind of info that would make for a good article. It may not be easy to find, but for a hit song like this, I'd be surprised if it weren't out there.
Yeah the guy that wrote that used books, i use the internet.
There is nothing here about the single except chart positions.WHAT DO YOU MEAN'
Where was the single released? In what format(s)? What are the track listings? Anything interesting about the b-sides (were they previously unreleased, are they different versions of released songs, etc.)? Done
Only one critic has been quoted (and the quote is not being used to support any argument, it's just thrown out there).Only one critic can be found and Done
Cutting it down is a good start, but it's still not being used to support any argument. And I bet other reviews can be found...