Talk:Illuminati (song)/GA1

GA Review
Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am Carbrera, and I'll be reviewing this article for possible good article submission.

Full review coming very soon. Carbrera (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * What's the 'Use mdy dates' all about? I'm not familiar with this hidden template; what a great way to start off a review! :)
 * Remove 'flatlist' from the genre; you don't need it if you're only listing one genre

Paragraph 1

 * I know iTunes store is a proper noun, so it shouldn't have a 'the' in front of it, but I think it may sound more clear if there were; not a big deal

Paragraph 2

 * The proper lyric is "It's like everybody in this party['s] shining like Illuminati"
 * You can add the years (2015 and 2016) to the beginning of 'Rebel Heart Tour', if you'd like; it's not necessary though

Paragraph 1

 * Flow would be better if you added 'several' in between 'enlisted' and 'collaborators' in the first sentence
 * Insert a comma in between 'singing' and 'laughing' in the Instagram quote

Paragraph 2

 * Avoid SHOUTING in source #4
 * Add 'a' before "pre-order for the album on iTunes Store on December 20, 2014, as an "early Christmas gift."

Paragraph 1
Well written; nothing to add :)

Paragraph 2
Also very well written; I am impressed

Paragraph 1
Nada.

Paragraph 2
Nothing as well; Good job IndianBio, and of course the other contributors!

Paragraph 3

 * If you wanted, I would add a word like 'similarly' or along that before the line: "Evan Sawdey of PopMatters said..."

Paragraph 1

 * I feel like the caption for the picture could be changed to "Madonna performing 'Illuminati' during the Rebel Heart Tour in Washington, D.C. in September 2015"

Paragraph 2

 * You could probably add how the live performance by the dancers was acclaimed by critics.

Credits and personnel
Perfect!

Charts
I double-checked and you did have all of the chart positions mentioned, so nothing to add here.

End of GA Review:
Wow. I am very impressed with the effort put into this article. Expertly written with very few mistakes, I see no reason why this couldn't be a GA article. Definitely fix the mistakes and take any of my suggestions into consideration, but I see nothing major (or relatively minor for that matter) wrong with the article. Thanks IndianBio! Carbrera (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

GA
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * But Carbrera, this passing could have waited until I addressed the comments? There was no rush to pass it. — I B  [ Poke  ] 09:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but this article is excellent and I had no doubt in my mind that you would immediately make any changes for the better of the article. The few mistakes j noticed were EXTREMELY minor and did not effect the article's content as a whole. If the article had many more mistakes, I would have definitely put it on hold but I saw no need to do that. Carbrera (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I addressed all the comments anyways. However for your future reviews don't pass it before the nominator addresses them because it is frowned upon, just saying this. — I B  [ Poke  ] 13:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Carbrera (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)