Talk:Open Your Heart (Madonna song)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I think it is a very good article. If anything it is a little too long, but that's no big deal. If you want add a citation or two in the overview, but that's about it. I'm passing it. BillyJack193 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Initial review
[edit]The article is readable, has a good scope and is well-referenced. It appears to be at the right level to acheive GA-status without too much work.
I will now go through it in detail again, but leaving the WP:lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As above, this article is generally at or about GA-level. At present, I'm just concentrating on minor "problems/defects":
- Critical response
- The first paragraph states "Author Nicholas B. Dirks, in his book Culture/power/history reviewed the song ....". Well there are three editors, so is it his book (possibly 1/3rd of it is his)? Are you refering to a particular chapter in the book, with a named author who happens to be Nicholas B. Dirks?
DoneChanged to one of the authors. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Musical video
- In contrast to the information provided about the song, its not clear from this section, the WP:lead, or the Info box, when the video was made. The first paragraph says, it was nominated for three wards in 1987, so perhaps its late 1986 to 1987?
DoneIt was 1987 only. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:lead -
- This is generally OK, although the first sentence, which also acts as an Introduction, aught to mention that it was released both as a song and a video.Pyrotec (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oy! Forget I said anything. ;) CarpetCrawlermessage me 05:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Done? I don't fully understand what you're looking for. Is what it looks like now what you had meant?
- Is this really necessary? I haven't seen that kind of inclusion in any other GA article. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The WP:lead is intended to do two main things, act as an introduction to the article and to provide a summary of the important asspects of the article. I would suggest that the second paragraph provides quite a good summary of the video section of this article. However, my comment when I read it was "what video" as the first paragraph only talks about the song, and remixing. Alternatively, the second paragraph could perhaps be slightly modified as:
The song was well-received by critics and achieved commercial success worldwide topping the chart in U.S., thus making it Madonna's fifth Billboard Hot 100 number-one single. It was also released as a music video. The video, however, visualised a different concept of the song.....
main review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A comprehensive, easily-readable, wide-ranging article.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)