Talk:Unbreakable (Fireflight song)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Hello editors. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. Check back later today for my checklist and analysis. Tim meh  17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I made several small grammar and overlinking fixes so that the article complies with WP:MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There need to be sources for the chart positions in the table.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll wait until references are added for the chart positions in the table before passing, but otherwise the article looks very good. Tim  meh  18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe all of the chart positions are sourced within the prose. Reference 6 confirms the R&R Rock and CHR chart positions, and footnote #8 for the peak on Billboards format.  Jamie ☆ S93 ' 18:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it may seem redundant, but those really should be cited in the chart positions table as well. That's how it is usually done, and anyone just looking at the table wouldn't be able to confirm the chart positions without looking through the rest of the article. See Dookie and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) as examples. Tim  meh  20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. From what I've seen, chart positions are always cited in-line, and thus not needed in a table later in the article (similar to refs being moved out of the lead if it's repeated in the body of the article) – I did this with Give Me Your Eyes. Good point, though, and I've added the footnotes for clarity. Many thanks for reviewing the article! :-)  Jamie ☆ S93  21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm passing the article. Congratulations; I enjoyed reviewing it. Good luck on your future work. Tim  meh  21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Best,  Jamie ☆ S93  21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it may seem redundant, but those really should be cited in the chart positions table as well. That's how it is usually done, and anyone just looking at the table wouldn't be able to confirm the chart positions without looking through the rest of the article. See Dookie and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) as examples. Tim  meh  20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. From what I've seen, chart positions are always cited in-line, and thus not needed in a table later in the article (similar to refs being moved out of the lead if it's repeated in the body of the article) – I did this with Give Me Your Eyes. Good point, though, and I've added the footnotes for clarity. Many thanks for reviewing the article! :-)  Jamie ☆ S93  21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm passing the article. Congratulations; I enjoyed reviewing it. Good luck on your future work. Tim  meh  21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Best,  Jamie ☆ S93  21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)