Talk:We Belong Together/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

I was looking through some articles, and noticed that this is a GA, however, when I read through the article, I couldn't help but think how this surely doesn't meet GA criteria anymore. There are multiple one line sentences in the prose throughout the article which just reads and looks awkawrd, in addition to multiple cases of WP:OR (Background and writing, Remixes and other versions, Awards, Formats and track listings, Credits and personnel sections). Also, cases of poorly formatted references, as well as some completely unformatted references. And where is the live performance section?? There were several high profile and famous performances and am surprised that a song of this calibre, and as a GA article, doesn't feature a Live performance section. The whole article looks messy and unprofessional, and I'm surprised no one has raised this point before. It may have kept it's GA status in a reassessment two years ago, but I really do think that it fails now, especially when you look at recently passed GANs and see how thorough and meticulous they are. This article has the potential to be hugely expanded and improved, but it should no longer maintain it's GA status, because it clearly isn't anymore. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment–Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) is currently developing the article in his sandbox. It should be completed soon. Novice7 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—If Nathan is working on the article then I see no reason not to wait until it's done to decide. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment–Wait. Nathan is developing this article. Pixelyoshi (discuter) 17:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In its current state, probably not, but when improved by Nathan, I'm sure it will then be able to meet GA guidelines. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 19:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I think it should be delisted now and re-nominated once Nathan is done with it, since he is probably re-writing the entire article. Pancake (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all the confidence in my work :) Thanks guys! As for you Pancake, no matter what I add to the article, it will only be improving it. Letting you know that my version is over 80K already, and will be a full article that the song deserves. I don't think its necessary or fair to make it go through the whole nomination process again. I will paste my version into the article in around 2 hours.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have pasted yours in, there will beanother vote on whether or not GA status should be kept, which I predict will end with a unanimous keep :). Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well guys, I have merged my sandbox with the article. While not perfect (I'm sure it could use an independent c/e) I am confident that it more than covers the GA guidelines, especially in comparison to the disaster that was there before. Take a look and comment if you'd like :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite not being near FA level, the article meets the GA criteria. See WP:WGN. —Andrew_stalk 05:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the points I bought up in the GAR have been addressed automatically makes it worthy of keeping it's GA status. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 11:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.