Talk:Paper Planes (M.I.A. song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: User:Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) 10:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the efforts in improving this article. But forgive me, it reads like an advertisement. It has outstanding issues on prose, other MOS, dates formatting, and quotes. I suggest reading WP:MOS, WP:NUMBERS, WP:LQ. Choose whether you will use March 5, 2012 or 12 March 2012. Be consistent.

The lead is simply too big. It is only supposed to summarize the content of the article, not practically copy and paste the commercial performance of the song.

Achieving much commercial success, the song peaked in the top 20 in some countries in Europe, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, where it reached the top ten of seven Billboard charts and peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100. "Paper Planes" is M.I.A.'s first top 20 record in the UK and her latest top ten hit in Canada after "Boyz". It reached two positions higher than "Boyz" to top the Billboard Hot Dance Singles Sales chart. The song charted in numerous other countries worldwide and is to date XL Recordings' best selling single. "Paper Planes" has been certified three times Platinum by the Music Canada (CRIA) in Canada and the Recording Industry Association of America in the US, where as of November 2011, it is ranked the 59th most downloaded song in the digital era, and has been certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand in New Zealand. By November 2011 the song had sold 3.6 million copies in the US, becoming the seventh best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era, and one of the biggest crossover hits in the country by a solo artist.

Please read WP:LEAD.

The references have not even been formatted. There are several instances of original research and a few instances of information verified by unreliable sources. I suggest reading WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Looking at the first 20 sources, FN 6, 10, 11, 18 are examples of unreliable sources.

As the article currently, it stands,

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Sorry. Best fol luck for next nomination. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This review hasn't made any effort to engage with the nominator by the looks of it. A point should be made, stylistic consistency should not be made at the expense of the (brilliant) substance in this article. Congratulations, was an interesting read, good luck for improvement and further expansion, and GA status in future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.77.233 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)