Talk:Umbrella (song)/GA2

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There are several sentences throughout the article that don't make much sense. I've listed them at the end of the review. Under 'Background and writing', the link to chords leads to a disambiguation page. The section 'Music and lyrics' is very short; it can be combined into 'Background and writing', or maybe made into a subsection. Under 'Chart performance' in the second paragraph, it says "'Umbrella' rocketed from number 42 to number one…" I'm sure "rocketed" can be substituted for another word.
 * Chord disambiguated. Word choice fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One issue still unaddressed. Diverse  Mentality  06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now a subsection. --Efe (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Under 'Single release and promotion', the second paragraph isn't sourced. Source fifty-nine is outdated.
 * Still unaddressed. Diverse  Mentality  06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know how to fix ref 59. --Efe (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can remove it as of now? --Efe (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Second para removed, at this moment insignificant. Left portions been merged to the succeeding section. --Efe (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:UmbrellaVideo(G3).PNG doesn't have an adequate caption, therefore not complying with fair use. What does the image illustrate?
 * Caption improved. --Efe (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Diverse  Mentality  23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Diverse  Mentality  23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

 * Under 'Background and writing'
 * In the second paragraph, it starts off as "The song was written with American pop singer Britney Spears, whom Stewart…" At first I thought it said it was written with Britney Spears. I had to read it a couple of times to understand that Stewart wrote the song with Spears in mind.
 * Original sentence: "The song was written with American pop singer Britney Spears, whom Stewart had previously worked with in the 2003 song "Me Against the Music", in mind." I had to split it because of the clause whom Stewart had previously worked with in the 2003 song "Me Against the Music". --Efe (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph, it says "Following the management's rejection, Stewart and Nash shopped the song to other record labels." Shopped the song? I'm not too sure what that means, so other readers might not either.
 * Tried to fix it. --Efe (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it reads "Following the management's rejection, Stewart and Nash deal out the song to other record labels." It's more confusing. Diverse  Mentality  20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tried to clarify. --Efe (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under 'Chart performance'
 * In the beginning of the second paragraph to where it says "the single retained the feat until 2007". The single was released in 2007; it's saying it retained the feat in 2007 through 2007, which doesn't make much sense.
 * Wrong info; it's the magazine's claim. "Fergalicious" sold 295,000 units earlier in January 2007 while "Umbrella" in May of the same year. --Efe (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the third paragraph, it says "…it equaled American group Gnarls Barkley's "Crazy" as the longest of the decade when it reaches nine straight week." It says "when it reaches"; did it ever reach the ninth straight week? The next sentence then says "'Umbrella' eventually reached a total of ten weeks on the UK Singles Chart…", which makes the last sentence redundant.
 * Tried to fix the sentence. --Efe (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Same paragraph, it says "By the end of 2007, "Umbrella" had sold 512,730,…" It sold 512,730 what?
 * Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the section, "It has also reached number one in the New Zealand, and the country's best-performing single in 2007." The sentence is fragment-ish.
 * Tried to fix the sentence. --Efe (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under 'Music video'
 * In the second paragraph, it says "The video was officially released on the iTunes Store on May 11, 2007, peaking at number for a period eight weeks." This sentence doesn't state the peak position.
 * Still unaddressed. Diverse  Mentality  06:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. --Efe (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All concerns have been addressed, I'm passing the article. Good work! Diverse  Mentality  02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)