Talk:Only Girl (In the World)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And of course I can help you. Just tell me what should we repair in it. Greetings Tomica1111  (talk)


 * Non-reviewer Comments - This article is far from GA ready. It does not contain any background of compelling information about its recording, writing or production, only factual information about the song and its success. Additionally, the lead should be expanded, two paragraphs is encouraged for small articles like this, not a lead single like "Only Girl". Lastly, without even reading the article, the references need work. A lot of over and under-linking, no language parameters, lots of incorrectly formatted fields and no works or publishers or accessdates (#2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 etc.). Since this article has been recently nominated, I encourage a quick-fail.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   11:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright I'm here to review the article and will also address the Non-reviewer comments above, as they definitely have merit. First of all, I am going to give the article a full review, because I do not believe that the quickfail criteria apply here and I do think that an in depth review could benefit the article:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * 1) As noted above, the first obvious issue with the article is the lack of background information on its conceptualization, background, production etc. It doesn't have to be an epic amount of information - a solid paragraph or two in its own section would be sufficient - but for a song of such popularity and widespread radio play, it does seem to be incomplete without background information on the song's composition. What inspired her to write this song? Were the recording sessions long and arduous or did they flow naturally? Did the final product differ from its original conception and, if so, what caused the change? You don't have to answer all of these questions, or even any of them if the information isn't out there, but this is the type of information that a complete encyclopedic entry on the song would contain. Right now, there's little more than the cold, hard facts about the song's composition, and that's not going to give the average, uninformed reader a sense of the topic. ❌ (Can't find any info about song-writing sessions, inspiration or concept) Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Also as noted above, the references need improved formatting - the most notable omission in the source language, but there are also issues with the source dating (at least the year should be in every reference, since it's obviously known). I would normally go through, reference by reference, to tell you what each one needs, but right now I think that there are more pressing concerns. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Scattered throughout the article are a handful of one-two sentence paragraphs, which are fairly disruptive to the flow. My general rule of thumb is that if a paragraph doesn't contain at least 3 sentences, it should be merged with another or expanded, otherwise it makes the reading too choppy. The last sentence/paragraph of "Critical reception" is a good example: it can't really be merged with the paragraph above, but it could be expanded. Who was she competing against for the award? How did she react? Was this her first Grammay or her 101st? Right now, it's just a random fact dropped in the middle of the article, which doesn't help the flow. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Under "Composition": "Rihanna's vocals throughout the song have been described as "seductive" and reminiscent of a "stronger, sexier version" of her 2007 single, "Don't Stop the Music". Who described them as such as why is their opinion important? Yes, I know a reader can go to the reference, but the salience of the commentary should be immediately evident by reading the article. For example, even adding "So and so, a reviewer for Entertainment Weekly, described the vocals [...])." That way, a reader who doesn't know what EW can look it up and a reader who does knows that it's a valid, expert opinion. This is done more successfully in the "Critical reception" section ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) The "Critical reception" section needs more unity and flow and some more original sentences that summarize the reception based on the sources. Right now, most of the section is just a selection of quotes from prominent music critics - the use of direct quotations should be minimized and more paraphrasing and summary should be use to improve the readability of this section. ✅ (I think, please check). calvin999 (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) There's a lot of repetitive word usage in the article, but the worst is the "Live performance" section: forms of the word "perform" appear ten times in this one paragraph, not including the section header. I understand that there is a limited choice of words, but even using two or three different terms here would greatly help the readability. Right now, it's very disjointed and choppy. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) The "Covers" section should either be expanded or integrated somewhere else in the article - it's way too short to be its own section. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't have too much of a problem with the lead - it does hit all the major sections of the article (except "Covers", but see above) and does not introduce information that is not present in the body of the article, so that's good. One issue is that it's choppy and reads more like a list of facts rather than a narrative about the song, but that's probably because it is reflecting the prose issues with the article. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now, I believe that this article is a solid B class, but still requires the type of editing that should not be rushed into the constraints of a seven day hold. These are not all the issues, but they are the biggest ones and those that need to be tackled before some of the more nitpicky GA requirements can be addressed. I also feel that, once these concerns have been addressed, the article would benefit from a fresh perspective/set of eyes. Therefore, I will be failing the article at this time. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Thank you for your work thus far. Canadian  Paul  04:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Where has all the countries charts gone??? Only the UK one is there
"" "". calvin999 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)