Talk:Iggy Azalea/GA1

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you still going to review this, ? It's been two weeks..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I am doing it tomorrow. — Calvin999  21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Review
 * Multiple dead links and connection issues
 * Alphabetise the genres in the info box
 * Has Azalea collaborated with those associated acts more than three times each?
 * better known by her stage name → professionally known as
 * She earned public recognition after releasing music videos for her controversial songs → Why were they controversial?
 * a recording contract → a record contract
 * five singles, → five singles:
 * was a hit, → Too informal
 * "Black Widow" was a hit as well.
 * "Fancy" was a hit, reaching number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, with Azalea becoming only the fourth solo female rapper ever to top the Hot 100. → "Fancy" topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart for seven consecutive weeks, making Azalea the fourth female rapper in the history of the chart to reach number-one.
 * peaking at number two on the Hot 100 behind her own single "Fancy", → which peaked at number-two while "Fancy" was number-one,
 * Azalea joined → Azalea became just the second artist in history after
 * There's repetition of 'additionally'
 * Amethyst Amelia Kelly was born in Sydney. Her family relocated to Mullumbimby, New South Wales when she was still an infant. → Rigid and boring to read, no flow
 * Early life reads slightly like a fan who is trying to not come across like a fan has written it
 * Iggy Azalea reached out → Drop 'Iggy'
 * You need a space between citation 98 and Salon writer
 * Throughout her career, → She's only had international recognition, success and fame for about 18 months, her career hasn't actually been that long.
 * Ref 2: Billboard needs linking
 * So Ref 3's needs unlinking
 * Dazed Digital is actually Dazed
 * Ref 7 Complex should be linked
 * Ref 10 should be Rap-Up and linked
 * So Ref 14 needs unlinking
 * Ref 16 is Idolator (website)
 * Ref 36 shouldn't have capitals because it's WP:SHOUT
 * Ref 38 same here. And it's MTV Buzzworthy
 * Basically, there references after either mainly erroneous and wrong, and need a lot of work because of inconsistency. I haven't listed every problem with the references, and quite frankly, I shouldn't have to even list this many above.

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:

To be honest, this article was bordering on fail based on the multiple dead links and connection issues alone, because it means that those citations are useless and thus the information provided cannot be verified or checked. That, in addition to prose issues and poor attention paid to the references, means that I can't pass this article. It has the potential, but the basics need sorting out. The fact that dead links are present in a Good Article nomination is worrying and shows that you haven't spent the time on this article which you should have done prior to nomination. — Calvin999 20:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Outcome