GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
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. | This is fine | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I don't see issues. | |
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. | No issues | |
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). | I seriously question using " Focus on the Family" as a mainstream source. Starpulse is dubious - they prominently offer to accept reviews from the public, but there may be editorial review after submission; Youtube would normally be a problem, but for what it's used for, it's probably fine. Other sources mostly alright, though I haven't heard of several | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Mentioning the band posted to Youtube without a secondary source might not fly at FAC, but it's fine here. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The section on charts only mentions South Korea. I can see no possible reason to not mention the main markets for the song's language. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Sure | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Decent; it's hard to do critical reception sections for this sort of thing 100% neutrally, but an attempt clearly has been made. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio. | Inclusion of images: Shouldn't we fair-use the cover of the single? | |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine for current images | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | For current images | |
7. Overall assessment. | Some issues left to deal with; good start. |
There, I removed the link. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Rereview: I think we've found all the issues, and dealt with the ambiguities since it wasn't a straight single, or, if it was, these singles were very obscure and of very limited release - which removes many of the issues. I'm surprised it didn't place somewhere other than South Korea, but so long as you've checked reasonably well, I'd say this passes.
In other words, if you can confirm that other countries have been checked, I'll begin promotion. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
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. | This is fine | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | I don't see issues. | |
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. | No issues | |
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). | I seriously question using " Focus on the Family" as a mainstream source. Starpulse is dubious - they prominently offer to accept reviews from the public, but there may be editorial review after submission; Youtube would normally be a problem, but for what it's used for, it's probably fine. Other sources mostly alright, though I haven't heard of several | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Mentioning the band posted to Youtube without a secondary source might not fly at FAC, but it's fine here. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The section on charts only mentions South Korea. I can see no possible reason to not mention the main markets for the song's language. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Sure | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Decent; it's hard to do critical reception sections for this sort of thing 100% neutrally, but an attempt clearly has been made. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio. | Inclusion of images: Shouldn't we fair-use the cover of the single? | |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine for current images | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | For current images | |
7. Overall assessment. | Some issues left to deal with; good start. |
There, I removed the link. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Rereview: I think we've found all the issues, and dealt with the ambiguities since it wasn't a straight single, or, if it was, these singles were very obscure and of very limited release - which removes many of the issues. I'm surprised it didn't place somewhere other than South Korea, but so long as you've checked reasonably well, I'd say this passes.
In other words, if you can confirm that other countries have been checked, I'll begin promotion. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)