Talk:If U Seek Amy/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Background section, "...who wrote hits for Spears first albums, including '…Baby One More Time' and 'Oops!... I Did It Again'. This marked the first time they worked together since her third studio album, Britney" ---> "...who wrote hits for Spears first albums, including '…Baby One More Time' (1998) and 'Oops!... I Did It Again' (2000). This marked the first time they worked together since her third studio album, Britney (2001)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Do the same for "...making Circus the first Spears album to have three top twenty hits since ...Baby One More Time (1999)" in the Chart performance section. In the Reception section, "Rolling Stone writer Daniel Kreps compared the party on the video to Eyes Wide Shut" ---> "Rolling Stone writer Daniel Kreps compared the party on the video to the 1999 film Eyes Wide Shut".
Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Music video section, "weren't" ---> "were not", per here. In the Concept section, "America's Newsroom" should be italicized, as it's a news program. The quote in the opening paragraph of the Reception section for the Music video is far too large (see MOS:QUOTE). Try writing some of Montgomery's quote in your own words if you can, or resort to using <blockquote></blockquote>.
I rewrote the first part of the quote and left only important sentences, so Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check, and well done on the Montgomery quote. :)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
~~In Reference 23, "Rolling Stone" should be italicized.~~
Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

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):

C. It contains no original research:
Is Bigwentertainment.com.au a reliable source?
I removed it. Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering about the source.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
~~File:Britney IfUSeekAmy.jpg and File:Normal If U Seek 663.JPEG need lower resolutions.~~
Uploaded files with lower resolutions. Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Xwomanizerx for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]