Talk:Charmbracelet/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: three found one fixed and two tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Charmbracelet was designed to recoup with Carey's former audience. What is this supposed to mean? Rewrite in good plain English.

   Carey collaborated with many songwriters and producers which she had worked with in the past, This is really bad prose.

   According to Carey, the songs in Charmbracelet combine introspective and personal themes, and also addresses celebratory and fun anecdotes, with love being the prevalent theme of the album ?

   OK, this is a quickfail on poor prose quality. It is insulting to nominate this sort of trash for GA status.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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, 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:

   Quick-fail on extremely poor prose quality. Please find someone who can write good plain English to copy-edit and get a peer-review before re-submitting to GAN. Why should reviewers have to wade through low quality illiterate trash like this? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.