User talk:Razr Nation/Reviews

The following list contains the final veredicts of all articles i've reviewed.

Live at Wembley (Beyoncé Knowles album)

 * Final commentary: Live at Wembley cannot be further improved and it covers the topic very broadly. It is well-written, information is correctly organized and is factually accurate and verifiable. This means that it complies with all the good article criteria and then it's promoted to good article status.

Homework (Daft Punk album)

 * Final commentary: After some major improvements, Homework is ready as a good article and meets all good article criteria. Thanks to all who controbuted on the article, mainly to and, who helped me during the review process.

Thank You for the Heartbreak

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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Additional comments:
 * 1) The article is very well-written and have a easy-to-read prose style. It meets all the MoS guidelines. The're no issue with any of its sections and information is properly ordenated. it is factually accurate and verifiable, it's clean from original research and the sources are reliable (only one exeption).
 * 2) The article covers all aspects about the topic, in a focused way, and witha neutral point of view. it is clean of biased statements and presents the topic with clarity. Only one image illustrates the article, but it's enough due to the length of the article. It also contains a music sample of the song.
 * Further reading on the Wikipedia guidelines, i found information regarding Discogs. It is not considered to be a reliable source, and the guide encourages to avoid it. So it needs to be replaced. More info:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Of course, it is not an issue on the matter, and can be changed later.
 * I would like to thank for all his collaborations and good disposal during the review process.

Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul
This article needs so many changes, and they cannot be done during the review process. So i recomend doing what is needed to be done first and then renominating the article again for GA. Also, i suggest a copy-edit or a peer review. All that has to be done is pointed out above.


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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comments: With some work, this article could surely reach GA status. 2 things it mandatorily needs: grammar revision, and a modification of the article body with the right sections. it needs to comply with the Manual of Style and the album article style. --Hahc21 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad Girl (Rihanna song)

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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comments:This article was already in good shape at the beginning of the review. Only minor details were handled during the review process, like some grammas corrections, adding an image, a music sample. Finally, it is ready and it passes all the criteria. So, it is promoted.

Drunk on Love (Rihanna song)

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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comments: Only minor issues arose on the review. Calvin is very good on writing articles with GA quality. At the end, as it's only a song that has yet to be released as a single, it meets the criteria. --Hahc21 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cat Daddy

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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comment: There is a lot of work to do before matching this article to the GA criteria. It has to be cleaned up first to meed WP guidelines. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Zou Bisou Bisou
I'd recomment that if the nominator/contributor hasn't finished the article, work on it on his/her sandbox before moving it into the main namespace. Also, get the article peer reviewed or copyedited to avoid bad prose and prepare it for the GA process.


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


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comments: Another quick fail. Only on prose this article fails the process. Also, some bad sources, some bad organization. I recomment mostly getting the article copyedited and peer reviewed before renominating. --Hahc21 (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fool in Love
Ok, everything have been addressed, so, i'll give my veredict:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 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 (references): 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:
 * 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:

Final comments: Well done. Minor issues arose but were finally fixed. Congrats to the main collaborator for his work. Nothing else to be noted. There is not much information to be added and i don't think it'll be released as a single, so it's complete.