Talk:Climax (song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Till (talk · contribs) 13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article, something I've only done 6 times before... and long ago.


 * The lyrics section needs work. It just has statements followed by quotes that have been copied-and-pasted. Not interesting to read.
 * Paraphrased a bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The release and reception section needs rearrangment, as we have sentences such as a remix content in June, whereas the next paragraph goes to talk about something that happened in March. Also remember to add '2012' after the month (June).
 * Removed trivial "remix" bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Critical response --> link sci-fi? And there is (slight) repetition of 'commented' and 'called' etc.
 * Done. Replaced w/synonyms for those. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm almost certain that the music video section can be expanded more than that. Also, why use a quote to describe the events? Why not just paraphrase. And a screenshot would be nice.
 * Paraphrased. There was a screenshot from another editor, but that was removed not too long ago for copyright problems. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replaced it with File:Usher Climax screenshot.jpg Dan56 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That live performances section reads much like a narrative. It needs a more encyclopaedic tone.
 * Revised narrative bit. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * References need to be fixed. Some are missing publishers
 * Periodicals such as newspapers and journals/magazines dont normally have publishers in the citations (Template:Citation). Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's okay. I went through and fixed all the references myself. Till  02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure about Digital Spy, but EW, Billboard, The Guardian, and NME are periodicals. Dan56 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does it say on the page that publishers can't be included? Nevermind, found it. Still, it took very long to fix those references, I have no idea why you reverted them and reverting them seems unnecessary. Till  03:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dudes at FA stressed it at one of my FANs not too long ago, so I'm trying to be consistent with that. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall, this is quite a well-written article, especially the first two (or so) sections, they were a very good read. Just some fixes that need addressing before it's passed. Till  13:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. The first two were the only ones I really contributed/wrote to this article. Dan56 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. Till  02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)