Talk:22 (Lily Allen song)/GA1
- The lead needs to summarise the whole article, it doesn't as parts 'her third consecutive top twenty hit' are not in the article nor are point coverage in the infobox 'released' where no prose is found.
- The background section is missing much of the lead 'from her second studio album' would naturally have coverage here but it is missing.
- The music sample would logically go in a 'Music composition' section rather then critical review.
- Swizerland is a mispelling.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail
- Missing WP:RS for release date, B-side, Genre, Label, single etc Missing for track listings and credits sections.
- The billboard link contains nothings about a Eurochart.
Broad in its coverage: Pass
- Nothing appears missing although not much depth in places.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: Pass
- I believe that the article is presented in a neutral tone.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pass
- The article is stable and there is a little edit-warring.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- May I ask why was 22 (song) failed if I didn't even get a chance to fix the problems? I am supposed to be given 7 days. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- It fails part 3 of the "quick-fail criteria" of How to review an article, having many unreferenced parts. As Does an article have to be on hold only for 7 days? says "No" and "GA aims to achieve the best outcome for the encyclopedia using the reviewing resources available.", as you likely know there is quite a backlog and I don't see it productive use of 'reviewing resources' working through an article that is quite some way from passing GA. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)