Talk:Rickrolling/GA1

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


 * 1) Well written?: Very well written - I see no spelling or grammar mistakes, and the article is very clear. My only small concern is that WP:MOS states that words should very rarely be put in bold for emphasis - I'm not sure if "rickrolled" and "duckrolled" necessarily need to be bold.
 * 2) Factually accurate?: Referencing was generally well-done, though I have two main concerns. The first is the various "citation needed" tags in subheading 1.5. Citations should definitely be found for these. My other concern is that some of the references are simply YouTube links - while these are okay (ie. reference 48 does show that the mentioned video was watched over 3.3 million times (and on that note, this figure could probably be updated)) IMO YouTube is not the best reliable source. Facts that are verifiable only by a YouTube video are probably not necessary in the article, but finding more reputable sources would be great.
 * 3) Broad in coverage?: Two concerns here: firstly, IMO  a section about  the history of the song itself could be useful to give more context. Secondly, while examples are good, I feel as though there may be too many examples. For instance, subheading 1.10 doesn't seem too necessary to me (though, I would consider keeping 1.10.1). Notably, also, the majority of the article is examples. While the introduction section is good, the second and third paragraphs could probably be moved to their own subheading, about rickrolling's history or origins, as their contents are not discussed in the rest of the article.
 * 4) Neutral point of view?: Very well done.
 * 5) Article stability?: At the moment, this is my biggest concern. The article had it's semi-protection removed just yesterday! We should wait a while (at minimum a week) to ensure that there will not be excessive vandalism to this page before promoting it. On a side note, while writing this review, an edit was made then reverted, which may be problematic if it continues as a trend.
 * 6) Images?: Looks good - pictures are definitely useful here.

I am thus putting the GA nomination of this article on hold. All of the points aside from article stability can certainly be fixed, but for now, we will have to wait and see if the article is stable, as discussed. However, overall, this is a great article, and I learned a significant amount from it. Firebat08 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of other things to consider over the next week: (1) people such as Carson and Rick should not be referred to by their first name only, (2) more information could be added to the references, such as making sure that each has a publisher and access date, (3) consistent formatting of references would be nice -- 2008-04-15 or 4 April 2008, but not both, (4) the Dan Kaminsky and Michelle Obama sections are single sentences. Can more be said?, (5) the reference in the "Barack Roll" section should be fixed. Hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One more...the worldview tag needs to be addressed and removed. Nikki ♥  311  20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion the lead should summarize the whole article more and the examples section should be made into more prose instead of a list. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The page looks great now! All of my concerns have been addressed, and I especially like how the introduction and first couple sections of the page have developed. Nice job. Firebat08 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)