Talk:Cat Daddy/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for the next few days.

Round 1

First of all, i've detected the following issues on the article.

• It fails the Notability guidelines:

1. The song hasn't charted on any national chart.
2. "The Rej3ctz", who seems to be the original artist, doesn't have an article, so this article is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9.
3. The album for the song doesn't have an article.
4. Also, only the music video os released on iTunes, but that doesn't mean the song is notable.

• It fails the Verifiability guidelines:

1. Most of its sources are from YouTube, and YouTube is not a reliable source.
2. 90% of the article relies on YouTube, so, without such information, this article can only reach stub status, if isn't deleted per the guideline stated above.

Second, prose problems:

• "The song and dance became topical again". Became topical?
• ""Cat Daddy" is a 2010 song by The Rej3ctz and an eponymous dance". Bad prose.
• "The dance was notable as one that Chris Brown performed during 106 & Park 10th Anniversary special in October 2010, while the song was notable as a MTV Jams "Jam Of The Week" in January 2011." First, this doesn't mean notability. Second, Chris Brown can perform any unknown song on any event an that doesn't mean it's notable.
• ""Cat Daddy" dance originated before being linked to the song." That says 'Cat Daddy' is a dance, not a song. the song came later. It's another reason why the article might not exist.

After all of this, I have to quick fail this article. it does not meet the guidelines for a Good article, and also for being an article on Wikipedia. I'll be listing it to speedy deletion.

Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Final comment: There is a lot of work to do before matching this article to the GA criteria. It has to be cleaned up first to meed WP guidelines. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.