Talk:Number Ones (video)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article right now... just setting up the review page... Canadian Paul 02:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

Some comments:

Reference #9 is dead.

I've made the link into a tree link. Crystal Clear x3 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is not present in the body of the article should not be present in the lead. Considering that, what this DVD is isn't actually explained in the body of the article. Even if you copied everything that was in the lead to the body, however, it still wouldn't be enough - this article gives no background to the DVD and fails to put it into the context of his career. Outside of "this is what's on it" and "this is what people thought of it" there's nothing really here. For this reason, I'm going to ask for a second-opinion on this article, preferably from someone who is familiar with this type of article - to assess it on its comprehensiveness.

Would you like me to format the article like this or like this (i.e. like adding a "Background" section)? Crystal Clear x3 03:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would really help, yes. I'll leave the "second opinion" open for now, just to see what someone else might say, but if the background section quells my worries, then I'll probably just pass it. Canadian Paul 03:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Crystal Clear x3 04:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Commercial reception", first paragraph - "The DVD album was certified thirteen times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America for the sales of over one million three hundred thousand units in the United States." - I believe that, per WP:ORDINAL, this would be better written as "1.3 million units" - and so on for the other large figures in the article.

Done Crystal Clear x3 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it doesn't seem that there are problems with the GA Criteria, so please fix issues #1 and #3 and hopefully a second reviewer will pop up quickly to give their opinion... because right now I feel that it is lacking... I'm not sure... maybe an explanation of the video's notability even? That could be completely wrong, so don't take it to heart, I just think that there is something lacking about comprehensiveness here, and hopefully reviewer #2 will be able to articulate this or tell me that I'm wrong. Canadian Paul 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better now. I think that if you add something from the new section to the lead, as the lead must cover all major sections in the article, this should probably be ready for GA status. Canadian Paul 05:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Crystal Clear x3 05:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just noticed something else: Reference #6 needs a release year and Reference #8 is incomplete - it's only a name and a page reference without the rest of the identifying information. Canadian Paul 05:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Crystal Clear x3 05:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks good now so I'll be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 05:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]