Talk:Spinning Around/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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: Prism (talk · contribs) 14:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General details

Disambiguation links: Not present.
Checklinks: Correct these external links.

There was one issue and I have fixed it --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: Not present.

In depth

1. Lead section

Last paragraph: "lead" → "led" (I think, please correct me if I wrong, since my English isn't perfect, or near that)

No no you are absolutely right. Corrected --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Reception

2.2. Critical reaction

Perhaps you should include more reviews of the song. Here's one from Blogcritics and other from NME; though if you consider they are unnecessary, feel free to keep the section as it is right now.

Those are great reviews! Thank you for providing them to me! I've included them now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Formats and track listings

I'm not sure if you can use Eli.com as a reliable source, though they always have correct information on promotional singles and releases, so keep it.

Even I thought so, but then again the information is indeed correct. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6. Charts & 7. Certifications

You could just merge the two sections, insert the certifications table in the section and put it under a level 3 section 'Certifications'. Oh, and change title of Charts to 'Charts and certifications'. If you disagree with me though, just tell me.

Merged. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

This article is very well done and was an interesting read. Once these tiny issues are corrected I'll pass it, though, you should consider nominating it for FA. Prism △ 14:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much! I have addressed the issues now. I think I will put it up for peer review sometimes later and then FA nominate it. Thank you for the review and suggestion! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for passing! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.