Talk:Whip It (Devo song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Famous Hobo. Apologies for the delay in getting to this review. I'll try to start the review this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Have read through the article once so far and the prose looks very good. I just noticed a few quite minor things that I’ll comment on in the next couple of days when I have time. I’ll also look at the refs, formatting, etc. Moisejp (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Music video: "cross-eyed Asian woman": It seems un-PC to mention her race here, unless you mention everyone else's. I would suggest removing "Asian" here.
 * "The holder however was actually whipped from her mouth." I'm actually not sure what this means in context of the narrative. Also, suggest putting commas around "however".
 * Legacy: "In his book Pop Goes the Decade: The Eighties, Thomas Harrison believes..." I don't think "believes" quite works with "In his book". Maybe just "says" or a similar verb.

Those are all my comments on the prose. Will spot-check a few references next time. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on this review. The only comment I had an issue with is the second one about the holder. In the video, Mothersbaugh pretends to whip the clothes off the woman. The only thing that he actually whips is the holder from out of her mouth. I'm not trying to act condescending, I'm just not sure how else to word it. I did add commas around however. Also with the third comment, I've always felt weird using the word says or said unless the person actually spoke the quote. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I edited the video-whip bit to try to make it clearer—see what you think. I will sincerely try to finish this review this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, grammatical, engaging.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A good level of detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Has a neutral point of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable with no edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Contains two non-free images, both of which are likely justified. But I'd like to suggest the FUR for the video image needs to be expanded. The response "Not likely" for "Replaceable?" in particular sounds inadequate, but as a whole other fields are too. Perhaps look at FURs in other articles for ideas? Also it would be good to add alt text for the image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I still need to look at the sources, but have started. Moisejp (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the refs. May I suggest for ref 6 that you just cite the Keyboard article directly (i.e., don't link anywhere, just treat it as a non-online magazine) rather than linking to Moredarkthanshark.com, which is not a reliable source. That's how I would handle the ref if I were doing it. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've reviewed the rest of the sources which seem fine. If you address the issues above about the FUR, the alt text, and ref #6, I will be ready to support. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Pinging you as it has been a few weeks since I left this feedback. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright well that took to freaking long. Sorry about the wait. Changed the ref. I can also send you the transcript of that magazine article, since I got that article from ProQuest. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . That's good about ref #6 (and I see someone else updated the link subsequently, looks good). But how about my other two concerns above: "1. But I'd like to suggest the FUR for the video image needs to be expanded. The response "Not likely" for "Replaceable?" in particular sounds inadequate, but as a whole other fields are too. Perhaps look at FURs in other articles for ideas? 2. Also it would be good to add alt text for the image." Moisejp (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Let's finish off this review. All that's left are the two small issues above. Moisejp (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops. So I actually did finished off these two issues about a week ago but I completely forgot to mention it here. God I'm forgetful. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks great. All issues are addressed. Nice article. Happy to pass it. Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)