Talk:Tell Me Why (Monica Anghel and Marcel Pavel song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim points for this review in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
no concern

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead
"Commercially, "Tell Me Why" failed to impact any national chart." - This is not discussed or sourced in the body.

Done Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release
"several instruments in its instrumentation" - this is repetitive, but I have not specific suggestion for how to reword it.

Done Changed "instruments" to "composition". Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Eurovision
"the then-Eurovision rules," - I think "the Eurovision rules at the time," has better flow

Done Adjusted. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2002, Romania automatically qualified" - I have two issues with this sentence. First, it's not entirely clear what is meant by relegation. Second, the structure made it sound like the two sang the song in 2001 as well. I think breaking this up into two (or more) sentences and clarifying why Romania qualified in 2002 would help a lot.

Done I have reworded the first sentence to sound better. "Relegation" means that, at that time, countries that did poorly in one contest were fourced to sit out for the next year's competition, giving the possibility for the countries that were forced to sit out the previous year for the same reason to compete again. I have linked "relegation" now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing
no concern

Credits and personnel
no concern

Release history
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern - AGF for translations of non-English sources
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The lead mentions its failure to chart, but the body does not discuss the success of the release in any way. Seems like an omission from the Background and release section.

I removed the chart sentence, but I believe that the "Background and release" section is incorporated in the lead. The only things omitted are the exact names of the instrument providers and the technical info surrounding the cover artwork, but I don't think that's relevant for the lead. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I made these copyediting changes. Aside from a few minor style concerns and one request for some additional information, this is in nice shape. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Argento Surfer: Hi and thanks for your time! I have responded to your queries. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]