Talk:Finesse (Bruno Mars song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Minecrafter0271 (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is my GA review for this article.

Article Rundown

Lead

• Pretty standard lead. Doesn't go into unnecessary detail, and sums up everything that I'll hopefully see later in this article.

Background and Development

• I like how it goes into detail on how the song came to be. So far, really good article.

Composition

• I am a fan of how it runs through the songs inspiration, with citations, and how it also has an audio media file with a relevant caption. So far, good article.

Critical Reception

• Pretty standard section. Goes into a ton of detail, but not too much. Overall, looking good.

Accolades

• Let's take a moment to appreciate how much citations are in this article. The only thing I DON'T like about that is that it makes my job as a reviewer harder because there are more sources to check and whatnot. As for the sub-section, I think it's pretty good;

Chart Performance

North America

• In depth review of the sales. Pretty standard.

International

• Again, pretty standard subsection.

Music Video

Background and Concept

• I didn't know have the stuff in that subsection, so I am happy that the article can teach people new things, if you will.

Synopsis

• It does a really good job of saying the main aspects of the video, but not giving any spoilers, if you will, about the video, so hats off to you!

Reception

• What about fan reception? Just something to consider.

The views kinda do that, on top of that is a GA article, so that would be fancruft. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Live Performances and Other Usage

• Okay. This section is a little bit long and not too comfortable to navigate. I understand that it is a lot of information, but it would be really great if you could narrow it down a bit.

Any sugestions? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Closing Comments

Overall, pretty good quality article. It is a little bit long, but I understand that the article does have a lot of relevant information. Congrats!

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Based on what I have observed, I believe that the article has reached all the necessary criteria to be listed as Good Article under the Good Article Criteria. Congratulations to every editor of this article that help it reach this milestone. Maybe it will be listed as Featured one day, but for now, congratulations! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)