Talk:Just Dance (song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hello, I am Unionhawk. I will be reviewing this article. This is my first time with a GA review, so, if I make a mistake, accept apologies in advance. Anyway, let's get on this.

Criteria[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Fix the lead up, and I think you have it.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well done.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The lead needs more in-line citations. Everywhere else is great.

C. No original research:
The lead appears to have some OR... maybe
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
It is stable, but I'm thinking once protection expires, it will become unstable, and subsequently reprotected.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Like I said, there are issues with the lead, but not much more. You have 7 days. If you wish that I re-review before that 7 day period, leave me a message on my talk page.

I'm not entirely sure what appears as original research in the lead, as most of it is repeated in the main body of the article. I guess I must be missing it, so could you point it out instead? I have, however done some general copy editing. -- A ^talk/_contribs 04:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look at the article, to me it looks good. Reference #55 needs to be properly formatted, though. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Just Dance" review[edit]

Apparently, I was unclear about the lead. I'm saying that 2 in-line citations isn't enough for how long the lead is.--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there's four in-line citations now. Nothing else is worth citing as it's repeated in the article and likely won't be challenged information. -- A ^talk/_contribs 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did not know about that guideline before. If you are ready, let me know.--Unionhawk ^Talk 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've just rid (definate) original research from lead I think we're ready. Thanks to fellow users for pointing out errors. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll take a good look.--Unionhawk ^Talk 00:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post On-Hold Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After about 2 days of tweaks, and me learning one guideline, here's my review:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Then again, what article isn't slightly unstable when unprotected?
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Good job on the GA. Congratulations.