Talk:My Chick Bad/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Atlantictire Good Article Rubric To ensure this process is objective and transparent I have created a rubric for evaluating GA nominees based wholly on the Wikipedia Good Article guidelines. In order to achieve GA status, the article must satisfy all the criteria listed below. If any are not met, I will post explanations and links to the article sections needing work. Editors will have the opportunity to improve the article before a final determination is made. Be forewarned: I am unlikely to approve an article for GA status if it is not a balanced treatment of the subject or if it reads like it was written by a fan. This means no: Hyperbolic statements about the significance of an artist or his or her work. (ex: "a highly influential rapper", “one of the most influential songwriters in music today” or “one of the most innovative albums of the last decade”). If the article is on a subject whose influence and impact is long established, such as a Bob Dylan or a Chuck D, then these sorts of pronouncements may be appropriate. With newer artists, I will ask that superlatives be toned down. Attempts to present the opinions of one music critic or musician as consensus opinion. Resistance to including negative opinions about an artist or album. Non-neutral descriptions of the artist’s music. It’s ok to talk about instrumentation, effects, lyrics and other compositional elements but no evaluative words like “gorgeous”, “thrilling”, “lush” or “brilliant”. Because verifying sources is such a time-intensive process, I ask that significant problems with content, style and mechanics be fixed before I tackle citations. Thanks everyone for your hard work! Current status FAIL Last review update 03:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Y = satisfies this criteria N = needs improvement User:Candyo32 asked that I fail the article so that should could work with a another reviewer.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Lead section This is one of the better leads I've seen. Very few problems.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I substituted the neutral word "praising" for the evaluative word "raving".--Atlantictire (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Defines topic without being overly specific N too verbose and specific in parts since edit revert A lead should summarize the article-- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) agreed--Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) reviews-- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I did this --Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) chartings -- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I did this --Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) composition-- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) this wasn’t in the original lead but ok--Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) giving points of critical reception-- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I think this is the same thing as “reviews” --Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) the music video section-- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I did this --Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Could you tell me more specifically what you objected to? --Atlantictire (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC) If known, gives full name of subject Y Establishes reason for notability early in lead N facts not organized from most to least notable since edit revert--Atlantictire (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I have to say I TOTALLY disagree with your vast deletion of all the content of the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead should summarize EVERY ASPECT of each section of an article. -- Candyo32 20:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC) First of all, let’s just keep in mind 1.) I’m only trying help and 2.) this is supposed to be fun. I tried to improve the lead by re-organizing the information from most to least notable, making it less wordy, and replacing evaluative language. --Atlantictire (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Briefly summarizes article’s important points Y Topic placed in context familiar to readers Y Avoids specialized terminology and symbols Y Information in lead also covered by article Y Appropriate length Y Fewer than 15,000 characters = one or two paragraphs 15,000–30,000 characters = two or three paragraphs More than 30,000 characters = three or four paragraphs Layout Disambiguation links (dablinks) =Y No maintenance tags =Y Infoboxes =Y Images =Y Navigational boxes (navigational templates) =Y Introductory text =Y Table of contents =Y Appropriate use of lists =Y Style and mechanics Prose is clear and concise = Redundancy avoided = Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style = Largely absent of words to watch = be careful how you characterize things. It's not editorializing (i.e. your opinion) to say critics "praised" something. It is to say they "raved" about something.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Spelling and grammar are correct = Content Addresses main aspects of topic = Stays focused on topic without going into unnecessary detail = Sufficient exposition of topic and facts = N While it’s nice information, the background section isn’t really "background"—just miscellaneous facts. "Background" would be how the collaborations between Ludicris, Minja and the other artists on the track came about, inspiration for the song, and how it was composed and recorded. Make this section about "background" or work the facts from it into other parts of the article. Either is equally acceptable.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Sourcing = Provides reliable references to all sources of information = Follows the scientific citation guidelines (science-based article only) = Contains no original research = Neutral Represents viewpoints fairly and without bias = I’m going to be checking for both positive and negative reviews by critics from reputable publications. Synopses of both will go in the article. If it turns out the reviews are more negative than positive, or if they’re mixed, then the characterization of the single’s critical reception in the lead will have to be changed.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Stable Does not change significantly because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute = Y Illustrations = Images tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationales for non-free content = Images relevant to the topic and have suitable captions = --Atlantictire (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)