Wikipedia:Peer review/If You're Not the One/archive1

If You're Not the One

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been expanded from a stub into a fairly lengthy article. I would like a review on the quality of prose, references (both reliability and number) and what other elements should be added. I would like to take the article firstly to Good Article standard.

Thanks, 03md 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start. I have some suggestions for further improvement.

• Typos and small errors should be cleaned up. For example, "If You're Not the One" should be in quotation marks throughout, and the plain year dates in "Cover versions" should not be linked. The sentence that starts "Bedingfield himself belives... " should say "believes", and so on.
  • Delinked years

• Using "cheesy" three times in "Background and writing" might be one too many.

• Do you really need a table for just the two items in "Release history"? Could this section be expanded or merged?
  • Changed to short prose section

• In the "Critical reception" section, "every chart-mauling uber-ballad" looks strange because "uber" is a German word rather than an English word, and it's not spelled quite like that. Perhaps ü, the German letter, would be better here. I see that the source uses the English "u", but I don't think it is correct. Using cut-and-paste, you could insert [über-ballad] in the same way you've inserted [recalls], but that might be a bit clumsy. Perhaps [sic] inserted right after the misspelling would be the best way to handle this.

• Further down in this same section, we have "is as vomit-inducing as anything the man in the plastic mask has ever wretched forth at the world". Surely the critic means "retched" but has misspelled it. Another [sic] might be required to keep readers from thinking you have misspelled it rather than the source. These two instances make me wonder about the sources. Newspaper and magazine articles are generally reliable; dot.com critiques might not be.

• WP:MOSNUM says that consistent date formatting should be used throughout the main text and consistent date formatting should be used in the citations. The main text date formatting does not have to be the same as the citation date formatting. I believe your citation date formatting is OK, but in the main text I see 20 February 2003 as well as April 7, 2003 in the "Chart performance" section and two m-d-y dates in the "Release history" chart.

• Orphan paragraphs of only one or two sentences are generally frowned upon. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge. I see four short ones in "Cover versions" and another at the end of "Critical reception".

• Some of the material, the whole "Music video" section for example, is unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim or claim that might be reasonably questioned.

• Citation 18 is incomplete.

• I'd be inclined not to accept a fair-use rationale for the second two of the three cover photos on grounds that they don't add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the subject. The first one does the job.

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)