Talk:Write Me Back/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mebored81 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Very well researched and written article. With some minor edits will meet all the criteria
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * Music and Lyrics is not exactly neutral. The bit about Nitush Abebe is a review and maybe should be under the reception section. Also the songs section also relies on reviews for its content so could not be deemed neutral.
 * Reviews are often used for these sections in album articles, as they have both analysis and criticism. They are also the only source for this information most of the time. What neutrality guideline in particular is this not adhering to? Are there any particular words or phrases? Dan56 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Music and Lyrics is not exactly neutral. The bit about Nitush Abebe is a review and maybe should be under the reception section. Also the songs section also relies on reviews for its content so could not be deemed neutral.
 * Reviews are often used for these sections in album articles, as they have both analysis and criticism. They are also the only source for this information most of the time. What neutrality guideline in particular is this not adhering to? Are there any particular words or phrases? Dan56 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the song section and I agree it fits neutrality definition of wikipedia. I still have a problem with the Nitush Abebe part though as it only the reviewers subjective take on the music, hence he is specifically mentioned. I don't see how if you just deleted those 3 lines you lose any information about the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebored81 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I just did a re-read of the song section and again there is some parts that you have addressed peoples opinions which I think taints what you are trying to achieve which is to simple explain and not analyse the songs. Mebored81 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They provide context for a creative work. Interpretations from verifiable professional critiques are useful in such articles (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Quotes in general are often used to add color and substance to prose and break up potential monotony for readers. Abebe's quote wasnt incorporated as prose, because it was too subjective and unique to paraphrase. Quoting is also useful when dealing with a unique or minority view on something, whereas something noted by most critics reviewing this album can be stated plainly: "This album has an traditional R&B style", or "its lyrics deal with matters of the heart", this being the majority viewpoint. Dan56 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days. If the music, lyrics and song sections are merged into the reviews section then it definitely passes. As it stands they are not neutral enough to be considered outside of the review section.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days. If the music, lyrics and song sections are merged into the reviews section then it definitely passes. As it stands they are not neutral enough to be considered outside of the review section.