Talk:The Fame/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • I was concerned by some recent edits but seem OK now.

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

OK, pass check against quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • There are inconsistencies in tense and some clumsy phrasing. Examples include:
   • Lead: The Fame is the debut studio album by American pop recording artist Lady Gaga. A revised edition with new tracks and different track listing was released in the United States on September 9, 2008 and in Australia on October 28.. If you are going to mention the dates of the revised edition, you should mention the original release date.
   • With the album, Gaga hoped that people would take notice of the theatrics and the multimedia based performances that she did. makes little sense.
   • He also compared Gaga's vocal abilities to be a copy of Christina Aguilera, Gwen Stefani and Fergie. poor grammar
   • The album also topped Billboard Top Electronic Albums chart, on which the album debuted and has been at number one for twenty-five non-consecutive week. clumsy.
   • It has sold 1,300,000 copies in the United States as of June 2009. Had rather than has, surely?
   • The Fame debuted in the United Kingdom at number three on the UK Albums Chart on January 18, 2009 and after spending ten weeks in the top ten, it replaced Ronan Keating's Songs for My Mother at the top position on April 5, 2009, along with her single "Poker Face" also at number one on the UK Singles Chart the same issue. Sentences like this need breaking up, they confuse facts and intent of statements.
   • "Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)" was the album's third single in Australia, New Zealand and selected European nations. Who selected the nations?
   • "LoveGame" was released as the third single in the United States, Canada and some other European nations... Implies that the US and Canada are European nations.
   • These are just some of the more glaring instances. I recommend a through copy-edit.

   • Cleaned up the prose completely. I believe such junk and clunkyness has been eliminated. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   • The above points have been addressed. I performed some copy-editing to improve the grammar. It just passes muster as reasonably well written but could be improved further. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • The last sentence of the lead, A re-release, The Fame Monster, is scheduled to be released on November 24, 2009. is information that is not in teh article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the artcile.

   • Right. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Ref #14 to LadyGaga.com is OK but should be mentioned in the text, eg On her website, Gaga says...; Other references check out.
   • Ref #14 [1] is a dead link I found a substitute and added it

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Newly added references #11, #12 and #13 are not reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

   • It has been removed both from Lady Gaga and this article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • My only comment would be that perhaps there is too much detail in there

   • Reduced as much detail as possible wihtout breaking the flow. Check again. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • Not sure that it is necessary to detail the artists who held number one spots before and after this album. Just a simple statement of fact would be sufficient.

   • Unnecessary. Hence removed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • It appeares that editors are adding unreliable sources.

   • I didnot get this. In every article some or other users add unreliable sources, however after sometime concerned editors who know the policy revert it. And editor[s]? I see only user:MarkBanks adding the unreliable blogs and that too has been reverted. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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:

   • There are points above that need addressing. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
   • One concern left - ref #14 as cited above is a dead link. Remaining on hold Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, I found a substitute reference at Nexis. All OK, pass to GA status