Talk:Juxtapozed with U/GA1

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * "The song was initially conceived as a duet but, after both Brian Harvey and Bobby Brown turned the band down, lead singer Gruff Rhys sang the entire track, using a vocoder on the verses to imitate another person." Could this be re-phrased?
 * I don't think this is too bad to be honest and I can't think how to phrase it better.
 * "Crtical reaction to the track was generally positive with some reviewers describing it as excellent." This is a bit broad. One of the critics mentions it's one of the group's best, so perhaps that should be placed their instead. Also critical needs to be spelled right here.✅
 * Might want to wiki link Lesser.✅
 * ""Juxtapozed with U" was inspired by the Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson track "Ebony and Ivory" as well as the work of Marvin Gaye and Caetano Veloso and was originally conceived as a duet, with the band approaching both Brian Harvey from East 17, and Bobby Brown to sing alongside Gruff Rhys." This sentence runs on a bit. Perhaps split it into two?✅
 * "Drowned in Sound described the track as the Super Furries best single to date..." Although I usually call them that myself, instead of Super Furries, shouldn't the band referred to by their full name rather then the short form? or perhaps just say "the group's".✅


 * b (MoS):
 * Per WP:SLASH, we probably shouldn't say "Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson". Perhaps this could be re-phrased to "and was inspired by "Ebony and Ivory" by Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson" or something. Same again when it appears in the next section.✅
 * Per Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), number between zero and nine should be written as words instead of numeric form, like "3 apples". So some numbers in Musical structure will have to be changed.
 * The link states "The numerical elements of dates and times are not normally spelled out"


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources appear reliable
 * c (OR):
 * Citation #5 doesn't say anything about the track being in A Major.
 * The cite is for the time. See below for the key.
 * "The track begins with a drum fill, featuring flanging, before a harp, strings, acoustic guitar and bass join at 2 seconds. An electric guitar joins at 13 seconds playing a melody line." I'm not an expert on song articles, but is this similar to film articles where we assume good faith when taking information the set-up of these songs? Or should this need to be cited as well? Looking at your other GA's for Super Furry Animals songs, it seems to be fine. Just double-checking here.
 * Yeah I think it's ok - the source is the song itself in this case.
 * The infobox mentions a specific release date for the single, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Can we cite this?
 * Bit of an odd one this - there's lots of conflicting information out there about the actual release date. I've changed to just "July 2001".
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * It would be good to have ALT tags on these images per WP:ALT.
 * I've added ALT text but it's very difficult to describe the images!
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * It would be good to have ALT tags on these images per WP:ALT.
 * I've added ALT text but it's very difficult to describe the images!
 * I've added ALT text but it's very difficult to describe the images!


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for a week to get these things fixed up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold for a week to get these things fixed up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-check

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * References all live, all check out. I assume good faith for print sources.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All sources appear reliable
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great job! I'm going to pass this article. Keep up the great work!
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great job! I'm going to pass this article. Keep up the great work!
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Great job! I'm going to pass this article. Keep up the great work!
 * Great job! I'm going to pass this article. Keep up the great work!