Talk:Charmbracelet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: three found one fixed and two tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Charmbracelet was designed to recoup with Carey's former audience. What is this supposed to mean? Rewrite in good plain English.
 * Carey collaborated with many songwriters and producers which she had worked with in the past, This is really bad prose.
 * According to Carey, the songs in Charmbracelet combine introspective and personal themes, and also addresses celebratory and fun anecdotes, with love being the prevalent theme of the album ?
 * OK, this is a quickfail on poor prose quality. It is insulting to nominate this sort of trash for GA status.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quick-fail on extremely poor prose quality. Please find someone who can write good plain English to copy-edit and get a peer-review before re-submitting to GAN. Why should reviewers have to wade through low quality illiterate trash like this? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quick-fail on extremely poor prose quality. Please find someone who can write good plain English to copy-edit and get a peer-review before re-submitting to GAN. Why should reviewers have to wade through low quality illiterate trash like this? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quick-fail on extremely poor prose quality. Please find someone who can write good plain English to copy-edit and get a peer-review before re-submitting to GAN. Why should reviewers have to wade through low quality illiterate trash like this? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)