Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) It's unfortunate that you had trouble with this earlier but I'm happy this easily meets the GA criteria. It certainly covers all the details of the subject and it's well written and sourced to reliable sources. I won;t hold it back from GA on this alone, but you've got a couple of problem links (one dead, one suspicious) that could do with fixing or replacing. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to add this a minute ago- you might want to be a little more specific with your geography- "Britain" should be "United Kingdom" and Ireland should be "Republic of Ireland"- Ireland itself means the rock, not the country. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it has most of the same problems as before. It's a composite of extended quotes from marketing sources, whose purpose is to glamorize Lady Gaga, with every little detail of fan trivia. This material wouldn't belong in the "Britannica", and a professional editor would remove most of it from a several hundred page Lady Gaga biography. It makes very brief mention of the instruments (what kind of synthesizer, what kind of piano?), the instrumentalists, and anybody else artistically involved. The article is so long it's unlikely 90% of readers would look at all of it. In sum, it's an unprofessional unreadable amalgam of publicity statements. Not only is it not GA, 3/4 of it needs to be removed to meet the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Quoting marketing sources does make information important. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with respect, that's my decision, not yours. However, you're welcome to request community reassessment if you wish. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not enormously familiar with the GA process. What is it that is your decision? That you personally can have something changed to GA in the face of any other criticism? And yes, I will pursue it. For the reasons given this article is not encyclopedic, let alone GA. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The decision to promote an article to GA lies with the GA reviewer, in this case me. However, if you disagree with my decision, the link I provided above tells you how you can get a community reassessment, the result of which will determine the article's status. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I've decided to do it myself. Let's allow the community to settle this. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)