Talk:It's All Coming Back to Me Now/GA1

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

Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References
 * References 50, 52, 38, 34 are dead links. ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The single version of "It's All Coming Back to Me Now" was included also on Dion's greatest hits: All the Way… A Decade of Song (1999), while the song itself was a smash hit around the world, reaching No. 1 in Belgium (5 weeks at the top), No. 2 in the United States, Canada and Ireland, No. 3 in the United Kingdom, No. 5 in the Netherlands, and so on. It has sold 1,180,000 copies in the U.S. and was certified platinum, as well as being certified gold in Australia (35,000) and New Zealand (5,000), and silver in the UK (350,000). The track reached No. 1 in some other American charts, such as Billboard Hot 100 Airplay (2 weeks), Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks (5 weeks) or Top 40 Mainstream (1 week). It also peaked at No. 3 on the Hot 100 Singles Sales. "It's All Coming Back to Me Now" topped the Canadian Adult Contemporary Chart as well." - this paragraph needs references to the various charts.  ✽ Juniper§ Liege   (TALK)  22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The references need to be rectified in order for the article to keep its GA status. After a period of 7 days, if the above problems have not been rectified, the article will be delisted. ✽ Juniper§ Liege  (TALK)  22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in me working on this? I spent at least two hours a couple of weeks ago revising an article based on a sweeps review, and my efforts were met with a miserly "no major progress". Furthermore, he failed to communicate with me when I raised my dissatisfaction with him. This has affected my motivation: fixing the problems you identify are for the good of Wikipedia and its readers, not mine. The JPS talk to me  23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the work involved was quite menial, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. The JPS talk to me  23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of the changes, the main review is to follow:


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Well written.
 * b (MoS):
 * Conforms to manual of style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Well referenced. Identified problems addressed.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Citations are to third party publications.
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.
 * b (focused):
 * Remains focused. No digressions.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * No issues concerning POV evident.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * No edit wars etc.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Images are properly tagged and justified.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are accompanied by contextual captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Keep/Delist: KEEP
 * 1) Overall:
 * Keep/Delist: KEEP
 * Keep/Delist: KEEP