Talk:Lady Gaga on Twitter/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	A well written article, had to correct just one typo.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Please expand the lead. The lead has to summarise the article. The current lead summarises it OK, please just have a mention about 'Twitter content' and 'Controversy and mishaps'. A bit about each.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References needed. Example: "The fan campaign is described by the Chicago Tribune as a "jihad against Gaga's Twitter dominance."" That was just an example... More examples: "Some people on Twitter thought this comment was insensitive to people with eating disorders and called her out on this." "Other people on Twitter thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion and Tweeted their support of the singer." "The Twitter controversy extended to the blogosphere with National Eating Disorders Association making a blog post to weigh in on the situation."	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The section 'Fan and celebrity interaction' is unworthy of inclusion and should be removed... It is about nothing...	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
As much as I hate Justina Beaver, I suppose that the section 'Twitter followers' is half-devoted to the fact that Lady Gaga has more followers than Justina Beaver... It has no mention of the third-highest follower count on Twitter, nor does it have any mention of any other celebrities than Lady Gaga, Justina Beaver and Britney Spears. This comparing should be merged into 'Justin Bieber rivalry'	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	In light of the claims about prose quality and NPOV issues posted in the talk page, the posting of the 'too few opinions' banner and for little edits to the article relating to the review comments during the GA review, I have decided to fail this article. Please feel free to renominate it after the issues have been addressed.

Discussion

Please contact me – Plarem ^{(User talk)} on my talk page if you need anything. Well done on writing a short, but good article. Needs to be touched up though... – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

FAIL Fail - The article has been failed for the reasons above. Feel free to renominate it after the issues raised here and on the talk page have been addressed. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)