Talk:Right Round/GA1

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

I am beginning the good article review process for this page. Reviewer: Torchiest (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article is very close to GA status, with only some minor quibbles.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Well written and organized.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Nothing in this appears to be inaccurate, unverifiable, or original. Add more references to reviews.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Could be small problems with the lead being too detailed, and some trivia in the lead.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Minor issue with WP:WEASEL in the lead, but comments are sourced later on.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Seems to be a minor problem with edits listing Kesha as a featured contributor, although consensus has been reached.
 * 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):
 * No issues with images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All concerns have been addressed! Well done.

Reviewer: CheeseDeluxe (Feel like talking?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Well written and clearly organized.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All references made are from reliable sources. Nothing is original.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The lead is a little too detailed. Fixed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Issues with weasel words in the lead. Not cited. Issue addressed.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * There was a huge argument and edit war regarding Kesha as a listed contributor. Given that, concensus was reached and it's over now.
 * 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):
 * Perfectly fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Bite me, but there are a couple of problems with the lead. While everything else is okay, at least one of those problems needs to be fixed first before I pass or fail the article. One week. Everything has been addressed. Great job, guys!

Lead Section Issues
Currently, I believe the lead has a few problems, but luckily, I think they could be corrected without too much trouble.
 * There are a couple instances of weasel words in the second paragraph. I can see that they are referring to properly referenced quotes and reviews further down in the article, which brings me to the second point.
 * The lead may actually be too detailed. I think it should be shortened in order to be more accessible.  It goes a bit beyond summary and ends up creating redundancy, which can be a little problematic since some of the specifics of the lead are unreferenced until later in the article; this could create confusion about the reliability of the details, such as charting, critical reception, details about the video, and the award nomination.
 * Some of the details might be considered trivial for the lead, such as Kesha's not appearing in the music video, and would be best mentioned only in the article.

Having said that, I think the body of the article is generally in pretty good shape:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * 2) It appears to be factually accurate and verifiable so far.
 * 3) It is board in its coverage of the topic.
 * 4) It may have some small problems following the neutral point of view policy, as I mentioned above.
 * 5) There seem to be minor issues with stability, as I see some vandalism and minor edit wars, although not so much in the recent history.
 * 6) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

I'll continue to review the body, but I suggest working on the lead in the meantime. Torchiest (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I put my review on hold pending changes to the lead. Torchiest (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is an adequate summary of the article's contents. The whole article is supposed to be summarized, not bits and pieces. The use of phrases such as "some" and "others" to summarize is appropriate since, as you said, such reviews are mentioned later on in the article and properly sourced; it's not a way to insert non-neutral opinion in the article and thus cannot be considered WP:WEASEL. I do agree that the part about Kesha not appearing in the video is possibly too trivial for the lead, so I will remove that, but the rest seems like pure opinion to me. – Chase  ( talk ) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been a little uncertain about how much referencing is necessary for leads, especially when information is sourced further down. My point is that I think it would be reasonable change the second and third paragraphs to something like:


 * "'The song received mixed reviews from contemporary music critics, but was a commercial success, reaching the top of the charts in six countries (including the United States, where it became Flo Rida's second number-one single) and peaking in the top ten in many others. It was nominated for Best Hip-Hop Video at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards.'"


 * That still contains a good summary, but leaves the details for the article itself, per this section of the lead writing page:


 * "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads."


 * The other option might be to add citations for the details you have in the lead. I could be wrong about this, and you may be right about that being only an opinion rather than actually following guidelines, so I'm going to get a second opinion.  This is my first GA review, and I want to be neither too strict nor too easy-going. Torchiest (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(second opinion) Part of the problem, and perhaps the greater problem, is that the critical reception section isn't large enough. Two reviews isn't enough to justify that reception was mixed and I'm certain more reviews can be found (It's a 2009 song, a lead single, and reached the top five in over twenty countries). Find more reviews first, then rewrite the sentence. If it happens that reception is indeed mixed, try for a more generalized statement by mentioning the most discussed part of the song. liquidluck ✽ talk 00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, more information on the recording process is included in the Kesha article, which looks like it should be here as well. liquidluck ✽ talk  00:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found all the information I was able to find on critical reception. Most reviews I found of the R.O.O.T.S. album only discussed the song without providing a critical analysis of it. If you can find more reviews, that would be great. I'll look into extra recording info that was located at the Kesha article, though I should note I recently had to remove a reference discussing the recording process because the link expired, and the extra content you are referring to may have been found in that reference. However, neither of these aspects have anything to do with this meeting the good article criteria. – Chase  ( talk ) 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May I add, there are three reviews and not two. If this is indeed all there is able to be found, then it may very well justify that it received mixed reviews (two positive, one negative = mixed, I would believe). Like I said, if you find more reviews, please let me know, but further discussion of this matter should be taken to the article talk page as this, again, has nothing to do with the GA criteria. – Chase  ( talk ) 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, upon further consideration, that the use of "some" in the lead does constitute WP:WEASEL, since it is only one reviewer that made those remarks. I'm pretty sure that's precisely what the admonition against the usage of "some" is for. I think that needs to be changed, perhaps by specifying who it is and using a citation, or, as I stated above, leaving the details of the reviews out of the lead, and relegating them to just the critical reception section.  I will, however, look around the net for any more reviews to see if I can help with that section. Torchiest (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Torchiest asked for my analysis of the page and here they are:
 * The word contemporary is not necessary in the lead. Of course reviews will be by contemporary critics.
 * The lead should contain a summary of the one-week digital record that the song heralded.
 * Chase, wasnot there really other reivews? I do remember Billboard, MTv, Rolling Stone, Blender, Houston Chronicle talking about the song in their reviews.
 * You can avoid a number of references by repeating ref. 29 for the European countries. That way, article space will also be lessened.
 * Remove the overlink from Flanders and Wallonia.
 * In the lead, the negative review needs to be sourced, as you're talking about particular review.
 * Wasn't there live performances of the song? I remember, American Idol, Circus Club, some Downtown discs etc.
 * Tracklisting, use en-dash instead of em-dash.
 * Avoid capitals in the title of the first reference, even if the original had such.
 * When citations are news items published on the website, use template cite news instead of cite web.
 * For the German reference, you can actually have a perma-link by clicking on the Chartverfurlung of the song.
 * These are the things I found in the article. Good work by Chase though. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Reviews and Citations
Okay, based on the comments of others, I'll withdraw my remarks about shortening the lead. I think, based on all of the above comments, the best thing to do would be to specify where the negative review is coming from instead of saying "some," and to find more reviews. I did some searching, and here are a few possibilities:
 * The Smoking Section
 * Alt Sounds
 * Rhapsody
 * LA Times

These might not all be reliable sources, but it's a start. I'm thinking reviews of the album itself, that make mention of the single, would be acceptable, yes? Try searching for R.O.O.T.S. reviews. Torchiest (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't check out the first two of Torchiest's links, but the second two appear reliable. Also, BBC NY Times, Guardian, and Boston Globe (though there's not much in this one). Those were just the sites I checked, so there may be more. I disagree that adding more reviews has nothing to do with the GA criteria, as it wouldn't be accurate or fair to say reception was mixed because of one bad review (See "Fifteen"), but you (Chase) have done great work with the article. Thanks for working on it! liquidluck ✽ talk  08:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All major concerns have been addressed. – Chase  ( talk ) 22:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have. I think this is ready to pass.  Great work. Torchiest (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey. You guys. I passed it.

This article passed.

*uncorks champagne* CheeseDeluxe  (Feel like talking?) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)