Talk:Rare (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review for that is okay with you.

Lead and infobox

 * I would change the word “reported” to “speculated” since it is not confirmed that the song is about Blake or Miranda.
 * I would restructure the sentence about Blake to the following as it should include Miranda since you use an image of her and discuss the reported possibility that she is addressed in the song: (Several media outlets speculated “Rare” was written about Stefani’s boyfriend Blake Shelton and his ex-wife Miranda Lambert.). Link Lambert and remove the comma between boyfriend and Blake as it is unnecessary.

Background

 * I would switch the first two sentences to go in chronological order. It would make more sense to have the sentence about Gwen working with Kurstin in 2013 go before the scrapping of the 2014 material.
 * Remove the transition “two years later” if you follow my above suggestion and move around the sentences. You can replace the transition with something more appropriate or just start directly with “Stefani enlisted…”. This is more up to your own personal preference.
 * Remove the sentence about the album being on pre-order as it really doesn’t belong on the page about the song. Information about the album being on pre-order does not add anything for information about a specific album track. Remove the transition “Nearly a month later” as it would not make sense with the removal of the pre-order sentence.

Composition and lyrics

 * Replace “Stefani’s relationship on Shelton” with “Stefani’s relationship with Shelton” though I am sure your wording is applicable in some sense lol
 * I don't even know why I worded it like that, but it's true tbh
 * Change “revealed” to “speculated”. “Revealed” implies that it implies a great certainty that the song is definitely about Lambert, which is not the case.
 * I would identify Fox News as “An article from Fox News”. I have seen other reviewers get very specific about websites not being able to say anything and to always either cite the author or refer to as an article.
 * I think the Campbell quote/article would make more sense in the “Critical reception” section. The paragraph is all about the song’s possible connection to Lambert so Campbell’s negative comparison to Ariana Grande seems a little out of place. It would also help to add a little variety to the “Critical reception” section. I would also reword to the following: (Chuck Campbell of Go Knoxville gave the song a negative review, describing Stefani’s vocals as “a pale facsimile of Ariana Grande.”) Keep the link to Grande. I rephrased it so that Gwen’s vocals are being compared to Grande as it is a little odd to compare a song as a whole to an artist and I think Campbell is specifically referencing the vocals.

Critical reception

 * Remove “upon release” as it is assumed the reviewers listened to after it was released.
 * I would remove the (“with Rare”,) part of the Entertainment Weekly sentence. If you really want to refer to the title of the song then add (on “Rare”.) at the end of the sentence.
 * In the USA Today sentence, I think you mean “Rare” and not “Truth”. Same thing goes for the Idolator sentence.
 * And this is why I probably shouldn't write two articles simultaneously. Lol
 * In the final sentence, change “further stating the track” to “further stating it”

Credits and personnel

 * Great work here

Final comments
Great work like always! I am very impressed with the work that you have put into all of these pages. Once you address my comments (there is not that many this time), then I will pass this article. Aoba47 (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review as always. Carbrera (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments and I am glad that I could help in any way. This article looks great; just remember that if the song is released as a single or if she performs it or any more information comes out about it to update the page. This is a definite ✅ and like always, it was great working with you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: