Wikipedia:Peer review/Born This Way/archive1

Born This Way
This peer review discussion has been closed. This album happens to be one of my favorites at the moment, and I would like to see this article become a GA article and eventually an FA article. I have recently put some work into the article for a few days, but I'm sure that the article still needs some improvements. A number of users have also given contributions to the article, including User:Theologiae, User:Legolas2186, and User:Dan56. Like I said, I'm sure the article still needs some improvements, and some feedback would be much appreciated so that I can make those improvements.

Thanks in advanced, DAP388 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011


 * Comment - There are a couple cite-errors in the reflist and a random external link is just chilling there too-- Groovy Sandwich  23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed it. DAP388 (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2011


 * Comments about references - — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Several references (as seen in this revision) are either not formatted, or have no retrieve date. I am not sure how this will affect a GA review, but it is still important: 1, 26, 28, 29, 31, 3, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 138, 162, 180, 188, 210, 237, 241, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250.
 * Also, there is an inconsistency between date formats used in the references (not listed here). Some are 2011-03-25 while some are 25 March 2011. Be consistent. I don't know which one are you going to go with, but keep it that way for all of them.
 * Reference 72 uses Gaga Daily as a source. That has been dismissed several times as a reliable source. That will affect GA reviews.
 * Reference 70 says the info is taken from Gaga Daily but is from a games blog. Plus blogs are not reliable sources; I don't know if this one is or not though.
 * References 30, 49, 185, 194, 217 and 246 have red links.
 * More comments on the way.
 * Okie dokie. DAP388 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011
 * References 30, 49, 185, 194, 217 and 246 have red links.
 * More comments on the way.
 * Okie dokie. DAP388 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011
 * More comments on the way.
 * Okie dokie. DAP388 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011


 * Comments for this revision below. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Refs [1], [2], [13] and [15] use the publisher parameter twice:  I suggest you put Viacom in parentheses after   like this:.
 * A lot of references put MTV Networks as the company instead of Viacom. Unless this is an exception, be consistent.
 * There is also an inconsistency I'm seeing with the MTV references. The article cites MTV as the publisher in some, and MTV Networks in others. It should be either one for the whole article.
 * Some MTV references do not state the company (Viacom). Make sure this is fixed.
 * Ref [9] Rolling Stone should be in italics.
 * Ref [17], it's not Metroweekly.com, it's Metro Weekly, and put it in the work parameter. Same thing for ref [19] and [21]. Not Popeater.com or Premixmag.com.
 * Ref [26], MTV is not in italics. Put it in the publisher parameter with Viacom in parentheses.
 * Ref [30], again, change  to  . That will also be the answer to why Rolling Stone isn't even showing up.
 * Ref [31], [33], [34], [40], [45], [49]: same issue as [26].
 * Ref [42], remove those two apostrophes after "Billboard]]": . Everything is turning out in italics.
 * Ref [55] same issue as [17]
 * Ref [57], forgot a pipe maybe?
 * Ref [62], specify publisher (Time Inc)
 * Good thing you withdrew the GAN, hehe. That's just the first column of references. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I didn't think that the references were that sloppy. Hehe, keep them coming. DAP388 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref [31], [33], [34], [40], [45], [49]: same issue as [26].
 * Ref [42], remove those two apostrophes after "Billboard]]": . Everything is turning out in italics.
 * Ref [55] same issue as [17]
 * Ref [57], forgot a pipe maybe?
 * Ref [62], specify publisher (Time Inc)
 * Good thing you withdrew the GAN, hehe. That's just the first column of references. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I didn't think that the references were that sloppy. Hehe, keep them coming. DAP388 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref [57], forgot a pipe maybe?
 * Ref [62], specify publisher (Time Inc)
 * Good thing you withdrew the GAN, hehe. That's just the first column of references. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I didn't think that the references were that sloppy. Hehe, keep them coming. DAP388 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good thing you withdrew the GAN, hehe. That's just the first column of references. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OMG, I didn't think that the references were that sloppy. Hehe, keep them coming. DAP388 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)