Talk:Just Dance (song)/GA1

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

Hello, I am Unionhawk. I will be reviewing this article. This is my first time with a GA review, so, if I make a mistake, accept apologies in advance. Anyway, let's get on this.

Criteria
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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I'm not entirely sure what appears as original research in the lead, as most of it is repeated in the main body of the article. I guess I must be missing it, so could you point it out instead? I have, however done some general copy editing. -- A talk / contribs 04:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken a quick look at the article, to me it looks good. Reference #55 needs to be properly formatted, though. Carpet Crawler  message me  04:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

re: "Just Dance" review
Apparently, I was unclear about the lead. I'm saying that 2 in-line citations isn't enough for how long the lead is.--Unionhawk Talk 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... there's four in-line citations now. Nothing else is worth citing as it's repeated in the article and likely won't be challenged information. -- A talk / contribs 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did not know about that guideline before. If you are ready, let me know.--Unionhawk Talk 19:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've just rid (definate) original research from lead I think we're ready. Thanks to fellow users for pointing out errors. -- A talk / contribs 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll take a good look.--Unionhawk Talk 00:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Post On-Hold Review
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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: