Talk:Go to the Top (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Grabbing this for a review. It is first on my "to-review" list.

Lead and infobox

• Image in the infobox needs an alt.
• ”Go to the top” should always be in parenthesis as it is the name of a song. This applies to the entire article as you do this repeatedly. Make sure to correct this.
• Put the sentence about the song being released as the first single directly after the first sentence.
• You do not have to keep repeating the full song title in every sentence. You can use “it” or “the song” or “the single”. Make sure you have variation.
• Be more specific about the reviews. What exactly about the song is being praised? What musical elements were criticized? You are being very vague in these sentences.
• Change (peaking at #1 on the Japanese Oricon Singles Chart, Kumi's eighth #1 single.) to (peaking at #1 on the Japanese Oricon Singles Chart and becoming Kumi's eighth #1 single.)
• I would change the last sentence of the third paragraph to the following: (Kumi performed the single during several of her concerts, including Premium Night: Love & Songs and Hall Tour 2014: Bon Voyage.)

Background

• Change the tense to past tense, such as making (“Go to the top” was Kumi’s first single since…)
• Identifying Beach Mix as “her sixth remix album Beach Mix”
• Is Kenji03 the person’s real name?
• Again, you do not have to keep repeating the full song title in every sentence. This is a general comment for the entire article.
• Restructure the final sentence of the first paragraph as it reads very awkwardly and is very unclear. For instance, you make it sound like the previous six collaborations were the actual video games themselves, as you do not identify any songs so it is very confusing. Expand on this.
• Expand on the “limited fan club edition”. Say more about its release as right now the sentence pretty much just says that this edition include the single (which is obvious). What is special about “limited fan club edition”. Rephrase the sentence.

Composition

• Restructure the second sentence to: (Clarabell was in charge of the song's arrangement and production, including the synthesizers, keyboards, and drum machine.)
• Change “provided the electric guitar” to “played the electric guitar”
• Change “According to Kumi, she felt…” to “She said…”
• The sentences about the B-side are unnecessary so remove them.

Critical reception

• Change the first sentence to “received mostly positive reviews from music critics.”
• Remove the review from Amazon.com as it is not reliable.
• Fix the problem with italics as many of the sentences are italicized for no reason whatsoever. Also, again, fix the song title and put it in quotations and not italics.

Commercial performance

• Change “discussing about her comeback” to “discussing her comeback”
• Change “this” in “this became her…” to either “it” or “the song”

Promotion and other appearances

• Change “her first and final collaboration” to “her only collaboration”
• Change the section title to “Music video” as this section is all about the music video
• I would highly recommend adding a real “Promotion” section that talks about her performances of the song on tour and critical reviews about it. You also talk about the song on Kumi’s tours in the lead so they have to be addressed somewhere in the article.

Tracklisting

• Include the times for each song
• Do not put the titles of the songs in bold. Just put the section titles (CD, DVD, etc.) in bold
• Put citations in for each tracklisting. You need sources here.

Credits and personnel

• Identify where you are getting the information (Identify the sources)

Charts

• Great work here!

Certifications

• Great job here.

Alternative versions

• Remove this section and incorporate the information either as a list in the “Tracklisting” section or somewhere else in the article as prose.

References

• While not required for the GAN, I would highly encourage you to archive all your links to avoid broken/dead links in the future.

External links

• Mark that the link leads to a Japanese site

Final comments

• @CaliforniaDreamsFan: I will have to be honest, this article is going to take a lot of work to get in shape to be a GA. There are numerous grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the article and there are many sentences that need to be restructured as they read awkwardly. Feel free to ask me any questions about my review.

@Aoba47: Hi Aoba47. My sincere apologies; another Wikipedian had edited many of the Koda Kumi articles and now the ones I submitted for GA have been completely changed. The user, who I have spoken to personally about the Koda article changes, have emphasized the Japanese Wikipedia standards and not the English version. Now they have messed up the articles for GA which I wasn't to impressed on (nevertheless,I did help them about editing future articles). I will have it completely cleaned up tonight for you to either pass of fail :) Like I said, this is not my standards on Wikipedia pages. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 02:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: No worries. I hope I did not sound too harsh in my review. There is a lot of potential in this article and you do a lot of great work on here so I am more than positive that you can revise it and make it reach the level of a GA. I am glad to heart that you are helping other users on the site and I look forward to seeing your edits and helping to shape this article into a GA. :-) Aoba47 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Great job with your revisions so far! I am very impressed with how the article is taking shape. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Verdict

@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Thank you for your thorough responses to my review. You have improved the article by a great deal and it is definitely on the level of GA now so I am going to ✓ Pass it unless you have any further comments or questions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: