Talk:Papers (song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Papers (song) 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

Papers (song) 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
April 12, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 25, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

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.

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

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papers (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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:

Comments:

~~"Buzz single" is industry jargon and should be explained.~~ Fixed
~~Sean Garrett is mentioned twice in the second paragraph.~~ Fixed, I think. He was mentioned twice because the last paragraph deals mostly with composition but techincally it is still background information, so I didn't split it. However I removed his first name from the second mentioning.

This is the sentence I'm referring to (second paragraph): "It was written by Usher, Sean Garrett, Alonzo Mathis, Sean Garrett and Zaytoven, and was produced by the latter two." -- S Masters (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the above, the article has no major issues.

Oops, I thought you mean second paragraph of Background. Fixed now! Candyo32 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Thank you for all the fixes. I am confident that the article now meets all the requirements for a Good Article, and I am happy to list it as such. -- S Masters (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]