Talk:All the Lovers/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Three dead links
 * ✅, replaced three links, two to Kylie's site since it just got a reboot and one to SNEP since it too got a reboot. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't have citations in the lead
 * When quotes are included a supporting ref is needed. Here are a few FA/GA articles that source in lead. Kylie Minogue Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) Heat (perfume) Saga (comic book) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In Australia, the song under performed → This sounds a bit bias? Top 20 isn't under performing when you look at the bigger picture.
 * Actually it has underperformed in comparison to Kylie's past lead singles. I have added some words to convey this. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "All the Lovers" was certified gold in Australia and Italy, and silver in the United Kingdom. → Wouldn't you put silver then gold?
 * The lead is quote long, it shouldn't have four paragraphs.
 * Critical reception section, especially the first paragraph, is really big. It's a WP:QUOTEFARM
 * Commercial performance section is a bit all over the place. One tiny paragraph, followed by a huge one, then two more tiny paragraphs. It doesn't look very proportionate or clear. It needs refining. Three paragraphs of the same length would be best here.
 * I have made some changes, sorting the paragraphs in this order - 1) Minogue's two main audiences- Australia and the UK. 2) Europe 3) North America


 * Same for Development and release, the paragraphing looks unbalanced. I always try to make sure paragraphs in the same section are of the same length.
 * Synopsis and analysis, the quote at the end is already a block quote, so quotation marks aren't needed.
 * Reception section, it's so small there's really no point having a single line paragraph. Just make it all one para.
 * Ref 7: Official Charts Company, not Official Charts


 * There doesn't look like many points here, but some of them are quite big ones, as some section need some work done on them. On hold. —  ₳aron  11:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed all. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Passing :) —  ₳aron  16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)