Talk:Talk (Coldplay song)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   You should omit the release date of the album, as it's release date is irrelevant to the song. The second paragraph says, "…and elsewhere in the world its success varied: it reached number one in the Netherlands' Dutch Top 40." maybe should be changed to "…and elsewhere in the world its success varied, peaking at number one in the Netherlands' Dutch Top 40." Sentence right after, "The track received positive reviews,…" → "The song received positive reviews,…" This happens more than once throughout the article.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   References number three and twenty-eight don't work. References number seven and thirty-two are forums, which aren't reliable sources. The brackets in the title of reference number twelve messes with link; might want to just remove those brackets. Also, if you can find a better reference for number twenty-four, rather than just a link to the mashup, it would help. Reference number thirty-one doesn't cite anything past the first sentence in the last paragraph of the 'Music video' section.

   Check and couldn't find a better source for ref. 24. In my opinion, I don't really think it should stay in the article. Thoughts? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

   That's up to you; if you feel it's important to note that article, then allow it. DiverseMentality 01:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

   Has been removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Under the 'Release' section, do we need to know the day the song peaked and where it retired on any chart?

   No, but I left the date that the song debut in the chart, sorta important to have and removed the date it retired. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias and has a neutral point of view, satisfies WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Article is stable.

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):

   All good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. DiverseMentality 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

   All concerns have been addressed, I'm passing the article. Good work! DiverseMentality 02:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you so much for the review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)