Talk:S&M (song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but i will be failing this article.


 * Prose and flow is poor. In the lead alone paragraph structure is not proper. You have the remix mentioned in two separate paragraphs. The US peak is mentioned more than once. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Background section; why are leaks relevant per WP:LEAK?. Why are tweet conversations needed? simple prose would suffice. "Rihanna stated that she" this information is not supported in the given source so its WP:OR. ✅
 * Composition; Ideas jump left and right, entire section is one clump, no flow or structure. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Critical reception; Again, as above, there is not structure of flow, one lump of a paragraph. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chart performance; ideas jump all over, again no flow. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Radio and release history; WP:OR issues. ✅ calvin999 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS
 * Unformatted references, incorrect work and publishers, incorrect capitalizations, incorrect italics.
 * Dead links ✅ calvin999 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS; what makes 4-traders.com, Elvisduran.com and a few others high quality reliable sources needed for GA status?
 * Because there is nothing else? Without this, there will be practically no background section with regard to the album version. calvin999 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry but this article is far from GA status at present. There are structure, flow, and MOS issues in abundance. If you would like to see this article as a GA, please list it for a peer review. A good reference on a good GA would be We R Who We R. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)