Talk:My Own Worst Enemy (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grondemar (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I will post a more-complete review in a couple of days, but in the meantime there are several tags scattered around the article, especially after direct quotations. These will need to be resolved before this article could achieve GA status. –Grondemar 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The is now gone. Statik N (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I am going to be travelling this weekend, so I will complete the review early next week.  –Grondemar 06:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this! I reviewed the article and have the following concerns that need to be addressed before the review could be passed:


 * In the lead: "The song was only moderately successful at first... It later achieved mainstream success...". Per the Commercial performance section, there appears to be only five weeks between "at first" and "later".  I would have expected a period of months or years rather than weeks from that kind of description.
 * What makes Musicianguide.com a reliable source? You're using it to support direct quotes.
 * What makes Musicnotes.com a reliable source?
 * I know Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. I'd recommend removing the sentence this source is supporting as it does not add much to the article.
 * I found this article incredibly hard to read, because so much of it is either direct quote after direct quote, or a long list of chart placings. This article needs expansion with more prose to fill in the space between the quotes and placings.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

As I believe the article requires significant work, I feel I have no choice but to fail the review at this time. I apologize for the inconvenience. –Grondemar 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)