Talk:Dear Future Husband/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.


 * Review
 * Genres should be alphabetised in the Info box
 * for her major label → Use of 'major' sounds bias and fan-written
 * The song was written by Trainor and Kevin Kadish and produced by the latter, → It was co-written with and produced by Kevin Kadish
 * Some said → Some wrote
 * and nine → Comma after nine
 * The single → The song
 * opening number → Too colloquial
 * 'chilling'". → 'chilling. (to stop the apostrophe and the quotation mark just looking like three apostrophes)
 * was premiered → premiered is already in the past tense, so 'was' isn't needed
 * Trainor initially announced in an interview with Popjustice in August 2014 → Boring to read "in... in"
 * the track is honed with slick production → Again, reads bias and fan written
 * In summing up her thoughts to Popjustice's Peter Robinson about → Poor phrasing
 * 'special lovin'". → 'special lovin. (to stop the apostrophe and the quotation mark just looking like three apostrophes)
 * on a list a man → on a list of qualities a man
 * Rolling Stone writer Jon Dolan observed that with the lyrical content, "[Trainor] imagines marriage as a contract between equals who work and don't cook," → Bad sentence structure
 * Critical reception seems very small for such a recent release with a lot of media attention and chart success?
 * Chart performance is far too short and definitely not detailed enough considering the amount of countries it chart in (judging by the table below) and its certifications
 * What does exist of the Chart performance section, needs re-writing. It's mainly sentence structure that needs work. Plus it needs expanding per my previous comments
 * Music video section structuring is just really odd. I don't see the point of having three sub-sections of one small paragraph. There's no need to have sub-sections here at all
 * Formats and track listing is a redundant section because there's only one format/version.
 * References don't need publisher parameters anymore
 * There are multiple cases of WP:OVERLINK in the references, most notably of Billboard and MTV
 * The Official Charts Company references should say just that, not just UK Singles Chart. That's just the name of one of their charts.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Summary


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

There are too many issues here. Section structure and article layout, sentence structure and grammar, references. I don't feel as though I can promote the article as it is right now. It needs a lot of working, plus some sections need expanding. Do as I've suggested and spend a few weeks honing it and going over it and then I would suggest re-nominating, but don't rush it. — Calvin999 18:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome