Talk:Love Don't Live Here Anymore/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Background and music section, "...it's use was more spontaneous" ---> "its use was more spontaneous", cause this ---> "...it is use was more spontaneous" doesn't make sense. In the Critical reception section, I believe it's Newsday instead of The Miami Herald for Liz Smith, cause I did a search in NewsBank and that article didn't come up.
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, you have "Norman Whitfield" linked twice, just need it linked once. In the Background and music section, please link "Rose Royce" just once. In the Music video section, "...and shot on March 4, 1996 at the Confitería El Molino" ---> "...and shot on March 4, 1996, at the Confitería El Molino", commas after dates, if using MDY.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the above can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops those were quite some embarassing mistakes. Corrected them all. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it as long as you got them there's nothing to be embarrassed about. :) Thank you to Legolas for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]