Talk:Lay You Down

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lay You Down article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lay You Down has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lay You Down/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

Info box[edit]

No issues.

Lead[edit]

You don't mention that Prince is "iconic" in the main body of the article, so this is original research/bias. Done

Removed "iconic".

Background[edit]

Re-title to Background and composition. Done
Decapitalise "keyboard" Done
You don't need to say Florida for a second time with regard to the mixing. Done

Critical reception[edit]

I think you could make a Chart performance section to be honest, or write some prose in the Charts section. When did it debut? What chart position? When did it peaked? How many weeks on the chart? Because this is the only chart it charted on, you can give a bit of trajectory.

I don't think there's enough information to make a separate section, seeing how it only appeared on one chart. Also, there's hardly any statistics or information regarding the song's charting, from any reliable sources, besides its charting position and date, meaning I can't really give it much trajectory. Basically I can't add any more to it, due to lack of information (in general).

Credits and personnel[edit]

I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Charts[edit]

I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!

Release history[edit]

I copy-edited this a bit. Thanks!
Add a column for the record label. Done

General[edit]

Add a picture of Prince maybe?

I tried, but it makes the article look awkward, creates a huge white space.

Are there no more reviews? Because the article is very short.

No that's all the reviews I could find. Like I said, major lack of information.

References[edit]

Some are missing publishers. FN8, 9 and 10. Done

Summary[edit]

On hold :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the helpful review, your inputs always appreciated. Rayman⁹⁵ ^(talk) 21:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·