Talk:Nothing Fails/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick check for obvious problems so far - I'll look into a full review tomorrow. But I did find one issue I'll at least need to ask you about: Is About.com a reliable source? If it isn't, it's going to need to be removed from the article.

One other issue - but one that wouldn't really be cause to stop a GA promotion: Is the short sample of the song chosen really the best choice? It might be better to have something nearer the end, that got a bit of the choral singing, possibly the bit immediately leading into the final "Nothing fails" section, so you still have the chorus of the song? However, do note that you need not follow this suggestion; it's just good to be able to justify whatever you do select.

Everything else looks decent enough on a quick check through; I don't foresee major issues here, but do need to actually do the detailed checks before I pass it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the About.com links, but I didn't find a different sample showing the choral singing... 11Jorn ^Talk 18:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment – I was looking thorough Google Books and I found quite a few jounralistic and academic interpretations of the songs in scholar books. Why don't you give it a shot? If you need help I can add it too. Also, there's some extensive chart analysis at Billboard's part, explaining how Warner pushed the song for success from American Life, and how it was instead a successful dance single. Holler me at my talk page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing the full review today or tomorrow. Indian Bio has some excellent suggestions, however; and I would like to see them added even if the article can pass without. There's a huge gulf between GA and FA, and the GA instructions actually say you can't hold articles back because they could be better, which is... somewhat annoying.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I have added the content in the article and you can check if its fine. Cheers. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I am sorry this took a bit to get back to. I'll just go through each criteria point by point.

1. Well written - One of the better articles on songs I've seen. Easily passes.

2. Verifiable - No issues here. I don't see anything that isn't sourced, and the sources look good.

3. Broad - It seems to cover everything one could. It's a relatively limited topic, of course, but all major aspects seem to be covered.

4. Neutral - As neutral as it can be, given it has to rely on critics' opinions, and systematic selection of reviews isn't fully possible. Pass, as the problems are inherent to encyclopedic coverage of this sort of subject, and the article does as good of a job as anyone could be expected to do.

5. Stable I see no evidence of edit warring or disputes.

6. Images I checked the images for copyright compliance. Those that are fair use have reasonable justifications, and those that are free-licensed don't have any apparent problems.

In short, it passes GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 11Jorn ^Talk 15:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]