Talk:Watch n' Learn

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Watch n' Learn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed against

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well-written:

• "When asked how is he satisfied with Rihanna's vocals and its prediction on the song he further stated: ". Please reword for clarity. (Two words need to be changed.) --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Changed it with him, but can't figure out the second word. Some clue/help?:) — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Upon the release of Talk That Talk, due to digital downloads "Watch n' Learn" charted in lower regions on the singles chart in South Korea. It debuted on the Gaon International Chart at number 89 on November 26, 2011, with sales of 6,049 digital copies" <-- What is this chart? The sentence could be more clear. Do these things relate or are they two different charts? Is Gaon International Chart one that ONLY includes digital sales or does it include traditional sales and radio play?

• Is it clearer now that is the same chart? Plus I don't know how the Chart counts the charting. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• "It begins with a reggae drum fill that" Can you provide some article linking that explains what this is? I have no idea what a drum fill is. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Linked. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Lead is not written in summary style. It contains original, uncited information and does not adequately summarise the article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I cited the quoted information. I don't see other problem with it. It summaries the article.— Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

• Article is completely supported by inline citations. Article is supported by inline citations. Plagiarism check here, here, here, here. No problems identified. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• [ "Watch n' Learn is a song recorded by Barbadian recording artist Rihanna, for her sixth studio album Talk That Talk (2011)." This statement in the lead is not mentioned in the article as it pertains to Barbadian. It needs to be sourced in the body of the article some places. Ditto with sixth album. This fact in the lead is not in the body. --LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• We don't place this information in the body for song and albums articles. You can check even in FA like "Rehab" and "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have a manual of style you can link to that says that? Facts need to be verifiable and it is still a fact. If there is manual of style consensus which contradicts this, will let it pass. Otherwise, no. --LauraHale (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• What manual of style? Sorry, but I don't understand you. Can you explain me further? — Tomica (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have a source inside the Music Wikiproject that says you can put uncited facts in the article like what you described above? This is rather a sticking point as the facts are supposed to be verifiable and that one isn't. If there is something like a specific manual of style like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs which clearly says this fact does not need to be cited? --LauraHale (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• A source for what? That the song was included in Talk That Talk or that Rihanna is Barbadian? Lol, I don't if there is such a consensus for that, but when we work on music articles we never make that. Try any song you want. Plus, I also gave you some featured articles that are written in similar way. — Tomica (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Source verification spot check

• 25 supports text. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• This source is broken.

• Removed. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• [4] Supports genre reference. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• [9] Supports genre reference. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• [10] Supports genre reference. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• [11] Supports drum fill. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• [27] Song does not appear. Also, please add to the citation the language used is Korean. --LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added Korean. It does not because you have to choose the year, which is 2011 and the date which is 2011.11.20~2011.11.26 — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ah. Okay. No static link? (I have that problem sometimes.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nop, there isn't a static link. Maybe to add note that they have to choose year and date? — Tomica (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added that the song is included in Talk That Talk in the body part of the article and cited a reference. I guess is fine now. — Tomica (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Article is broad in its coverage and organised in a way to demonstrate that. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Did the article chart elsewhere? Are there any sources that talk about how it did not chart? Was the lack of charting because it was not the chosen song from the album for radio play? --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Nop. The song didn't receive any promotion yet. However, that made happen in future. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

I've read it three times. I feel like it reads as a bit promotional at time, but I'm not certain how this can be avoided if the critical reception has largely been positive and there wasn't much drama in creating the song.

Stable

• Article appears stable. No tags or edit wars. --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• all images have an acceptable copyright tag or fair use rationale.
• Is there cover art image for the album that can be used in the information box? --LauraHale (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"*There is no cover for the song. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Not required, but can you add alt= tags to all images for people with vision impairment? --LauraHale (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added. — Tomica (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns addressed

Passing. --LauraHale (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)