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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'll be reviewing this article from Saturday 2 June 2012. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's do this.

• As a whole, the article seems to be complete, it meets all guidelines.

Lead

• "sexual themes such as lesbianism and masturbation."

• The article body doesn't mention "lesbianism", so it could be considered original research. I recommend to write it as: "Aside from the prevalent ideas of alcoholism, "So Happy I Could Die" [also] explores [several] sexual themes on its lyrics." and leave the specific for the body, and then avoid giving the reader a somehow biased impression of the song. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done

Composition

• "According to Musicnotes.com, a publication of Sony/ATV Music Publishing," >> "According to music sheet published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing on Musicnotes.com"

• What is written reads like Musicnotes.com is a publication of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, and what is supposed to be expressed is that Sony/ATV Music Publishing published wheet music of the song on Musicnotes.com. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done

Reception

• "produced varying responses from commentators." >> "received mixed critical response from most music critics" is more clearer and avoids ambiguity. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

• I broke the reflist into 2 columns for better structuration (m) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I modified the chart table to indtroduce the {{singlechart}} (m) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will move the image to the left and we're almost good to go. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. it's done. Now it looks better. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

• A phrase that i felt was OR and trivia was already deleted. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did that.

Should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that "The Ultimate..." should be added to ref No.11. (just a comment)
  •  Done
• Ref No.13 is lacking author, publishdate, work and publisher.
  •  Done
• This is not necessary but Refs No.17 and 18 has the publisher between parentheses, while the rest doesn't. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Now everything should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, everything has been fized by now. My verdict:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 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:
· · ·

Final comment: Good job. Incredible article. Just minor issues had to be fixed. Aside that, everything was very well. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]