Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA2

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

This is the second time I'm doing a Good Article Reassessment (GAR). I was linked from WP:GA to the articles "LoveGame" and "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" today and checked out their talk pages to see when they were promoted (Paparazzi was in March 2010). It wasn't the first time something that wasn't promoted to GA recently had its name featured on WP:GA; I also saw Brazil listed as a good article on WP:GA in April/May 2014, but it has not been a good article yet. This (Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)) is not a professionally written recent good article (GA), it's an 4.25-year old GA with poor quality English and questionable sourcing, which is why I created this GAR. Please note that I hate pop music, which is not why I'm doing this GAR.

Beside from that motive, here's other reasons for GAR:
 * 1) Tone-wise, the article feels like an advertisement.
 * 2) It's not in a neutral point of view and was possibly written by a fan.
 * 3) Some of the references are dead links. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for starting the review prematurely, but I will pick out random issues from this article over time.


 * "The song received acclaim from critics." How much acclaimed was this song?
 * reworded Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The whole "Background and composition" section is lacking in detail.
 * "Rolling Stone called it the second greatest Gaga song ever." Replace "ever" with "of all time".
 * ✅ Snuggums (talk • contributions) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Copyedit this: "Further explanations said that the song was about trying to win the paparazzi and the media in one's favor."It's a love song for the cameras, but it's also a love song about fame or love – can you have both, or can you only have one", she concluded."
 * There's too many uses of the words "said", "say", and "saying".
 * "mini-movie" → "short film".
 * Reword this: "With the song, Gaga joined Christina Aguilera, Beyoncé, and Fergie as the only women this decade to collect four Hot 100 top-tens from a debut album."
 * See this page for links to be fixed.
 * All references need Wayback Machine.
 * Rewrite the lead so it doesn't feel confusing.
 * Merge single sentences into larger ones, especially if they consist of broken prose.
 * , first me and XXSNUGGUMSXX will take a look at "LoveGame" then we will come back to this article. Is that ok? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you. It's okay to do that. :) }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 09:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to copyedit the article for faulty prose. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 06:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, is the Checklinks tool working for you? I spent the last two hours refreshing, but its not showing the links and neither can I change the dead ones. :( — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 15:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't working for me or anyone else either :(, see Village pump (technical)/Archive 128 for more. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion really made my head spin, I mean WTF!! And there's no alternative also. At the end of the discussion some of them said that Reflinks was working, but i don't think so? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 16:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Toolserver looks like it's stuck on "Loading..." to me, which means you must manually check all the references one-by-one to see if they're still working. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 02:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I lied. I confused Reflinks with Toolserver and the loading time is not indefinite. Reflinks still works for me, but you have to wait several minutes to see a Reflinks page. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah even I noticed that Reflinks is working, however, Checklinks is nada. If only you had initiated the review a few more days back...lol. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Like Reflinks, Checklinks still works, but wait several minutes to see a Checklinks page. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 02:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 67 is dead, while refs 5, 50, 53 and 111 have connection issues. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected the references, those few remaining will be gone when the chart templates singlechart used. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been over a week and a half since the previous comment here was made. Had you copyedited this article yet? }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 15:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is going on but at a slow pace. You have to wait. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree. I'm happy! =D }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 16:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that I will finish the GAR tonight. Sorry for delaying it for so long. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 11:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! =D }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 03:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * do you feel anymore change is needed? I don't think so. Do you think the critical reception section could be filled up? — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 10:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is in good shape now. =) Thank you for notifying me! =D }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 13:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Article kept. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have updated the article history. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 09:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)