Talk:Summertime (Beyoncé song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  01:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Introduction and infobox

 * Infobox
 * remove names in quotation marks. Only birth names should go in the infobox.
 * issue with MTV source as it does not specify the release (note this point I will bring it up again later in the review).
 * Link to Adonis Shropshire?
 * Introduction
 * remove names in Speech marks.
 * Link to Adonis Shropshire?
 * "The song was later remixed with rapper Ghostface Killah." → later remixed when? for the film?
 * Which version of the song is a b-side to "Crazy in Love"?
 * Singles if released (i.e. sent to digital retailers) are not serviced. 'serviced' = sent to radio.
 * her first solo tour Dangerously in Love Tour → her first solo tour

Context and allusions to the film

 * rephrase and merge into background and composition section
 * Allusions to the film section needs deleting. Its just a brief synopsis of the film ... not required.
 * What makes the situation a reliable source?
 * Amazon.com is not a reliable source for reviews.

Track listing and charts

 * EIL has no official establishment. The vinyls it sells are not sourced or linked to record labels and there is nothing to suggest that it is an official retailer, rather it sells bootlegs.
 * According to Billboard the version charting at number 35 is the version featuring either P. Diddy or Ghostface Killer. So I would list it as one chart position persoanlly.

Overall decision
❌ I don't feel like I could ever see this being awarded WP:GA status. Unfortunately there just is not enough information to support its indepedent release (should be downgraded to song not promo single). Equally the use of Amazon.com and EIL is questionable, as is the lack of broad coverage. This article is simply way behind others which have reached GA standard, and is not all encompassing. GAs are supposed to examplify some of the really good articles on wikipedia... ideally we'd love for all articles to be GA but I simply cannot pass this on the basis that once you've made the necessary changes I've asked for... it will be little more than a stub because presently irrelevant information has been added to pad out the article. Note, without adding insult to injury, source 11 should have used the cite journal template. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that I commend all the work done to try and improve the article... but I feel like its been an attempt to create a GA where an indepedent article of its own is already in question. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)