Talk:Diamonds (Rihanna song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments: The article appears to exceed the Good Article requirements, and is clearer intended for the featured article process (if it is not, then it ought to be). I will therefore focus my reviewing energies on those areas which are typically non-obvious, including source quality and copyright issues. I say this only to make it clear that such a focus is "nothing personal".
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The article is generally of good article quality, though I retain some concerns.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is of a high standard throughout. I have some concern at use of terms such as "unveil", but my concern is not particular deep, as the terms used are neither greatly biased nor completely unjustified, given the need to constantly find synonyms.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A random check of sourcing reveals some inconsistencies. For example, citation 62, used to support "In the US, "Diamonds" debuted at number 16" in fact suggests it debuted at number 7. Citation 40 should not be used to support the debut at position 17 in the Irish chart. Checks on other references revealed no further problems; there is clearly no intent to deliberately mislead, and, as such, I suggest the main contributors to the article take the time to double check the other citations. I did not find any plagiarism issues.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is commendably complete, without including information unrelated to the subject of the article. One wonders if the clothing Rihanna wears while performing might not be a bridge too far, though there appears to be no lack of RSes commenting upon it, so I can only assume not.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article appears to be neutral, including comments positive positive and negative. It maintains a good tone throughout, use of terms such as "unveiled" notwithstanding (as above).
 * 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):
 * All media fine except File:Rihanna_-_Diamonds.ogg, which has been tagged for a slight quality reduction (to 64kbps) and length reduction (to 22 seconds), and File:Diamonds_video_shoot.png, which has no good reason to be above 300px in width. File:Benny_Blanco_Big_Piano.jpg accepted on good faith. Please improve the description on File:Rihanna-mexico-city.png. Actually, come to mention it, it seems that that image was uploaded by a user whose previous uploads have been deleted. That will need to be investigated with Commons admins to determine whether the image used fits the pre-existing modus operandi.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold awaiting resolution of the above issues. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 01:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On hold awaiting resolution of the above issues. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 01:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey Jarry, thanks for reviewing the article. Okay so let's summarize: I replaced the reference for the US debut (it indeed debuted at 16 on the Hot 100, it debuted at 7 on the Digital Songs chart, somebody put a wrong reference), same as the Irish one, I fixed it and now it says that it debuted at 17. I fixed all the stuff with the images (remove the image of her performing in Mexico) and I asked a user to reduce the sample :). — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Diamonds video shoot.png size reduction? Also, are you confident in your other sources then? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Reduced it now, although it is still bigger than 300px; the picture has this weird shape because of the frames of the official video itself. And I think I am pretty much confident that everything is properly sourced. — Tomíca (T2ME) 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, having checked a few more refs, I'm satisfied. GA review passed. Please consider reviewing someone else's nomination. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank You! — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)