Talk:De la capăt/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chihciboy (talk · contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll review. Chihciboy (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Yes Here we go:

Infobox

 * Composer field is missing
 * Run-time field is missing
 * Producer field (Based on the liner notes, is Metropolitan) is missing
 * You can move the Music video link at the bottom of the infobox
 * The parametres are missing since we have different versions of the song, and adding something there would confuse the reader. Also the producer is unknown, and there are multiple videos for all versions of the song, thus it won't be linked. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess it's okay, then.

Lead

 * Consider rephrasing "children left behind by parents who work abroad" to "for children whose parents have left them behind to work abroad."
 * link "migrant worker" to "parents" or "work abroad"
 * Oberservers → Observers
 * Move "Observers have compared the track to "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever" (1995) by Delirious?." to the second paragraph for consistency, just before "it won..."
 * Italicize (Way of the Danube) since it is a registered English title.
 * ✅ Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Background and Composition

 * Consider including an audio clip?
 * I actually don't think it's needed here. There's nothing that a sample would help the reader to understand about the song more than it's already written about here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me.

In Vienna

 * Alt parameter missing in image
 * ✅ Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Verdict

 * for 7 days — Just a few tweaks and it's good to go. Chihciboy (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! I have responded to your comments... Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Outcome

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Congrats, . Chihciboy (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)