Talk:One Love (Jennifer Lopez song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) 13:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * It has been exactly one month since the last review, so I will review it (again) to have the backlog moving.
 * First of all, the article is in much better state, and clearly there have been improvements since the last nomination and now.

Issues
 * Semi-colon is used incorrectly in the first sentence of the second paragrph (in the lead). Should be just a comma.
 * which contains references --> which according to them contains references
 * Despite this, critics have noted that Noa is not referenced in the song and the lawsuit never transpired. --> Hmm I read the article and only one critic said that, so maybe change to "one critic noted that Noa is not ..."
 * had plans to --> intended to
 * Link Epic Records and Sony Music Entertainment
 * who loved the idea of the it but thought the track to be "very generic" ...
 * ..new verses for the song; --> again semi-colon issue
 * Lopez recorded her vocals --> Change Lopez to 'she' because of repetition
 * this is unreliable, as was written by a user of the site, not a staff member, thus should be removed
 * Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine started that beyond --> Hmm shouldn't this be "stated"?
 * "The Music Network" in the reception section should be wiki-linked, and in the reference, it should not be in italics
 * starting that apart from other songs on Love? --> same as above.
 * released a statement saying --> released a statement, saying (for better flow)
 * He further started that --> "stated" .. again .. or am I missing something? :S
 * I think it would be good to write where the Mohegan Sun is (i.e. Uncasville, Connecticut)
 * The credits for the personnel section really do need to be listed, I think that was mentioned in the last review
 * New York Times publisher is New York Times Company

Overall
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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:
 * On hold for 6-7 days, I don't believe this will take long, thanks.
 * 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:
 * On hold for 6-7 days, I don't believe this will take long, thanks.
 * On hold for 6-7 days, I don't believe this will take long, thanks.


 * I believe all the issues have been addressed. LOL at the "started" issue. I never noticed that until you pointed it out. Statυs   ≠  14:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Passed now. Till I Go Home talk  edits 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)