Talk:Born to Make You Happy/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: CallMeNathanTalk2Me 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

  • Nice writing!
Thanks! :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Which country is that certification for? If you are going to list one, then list all four
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • portrayed Spears -> portrays. There has to be a consistent tense used in the sentence
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • four tours -> you listed three, which is the fourth?
Crazy 2k tour. Listed. - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Background[edit]

  • The song -> since your starting the paragraph, I think it would be more effective if you used the actual title.
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Esbjörn Öhrwall played the guitar. Keyboards and programming was done by Lundin. -> try to tie them into one sentence
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Try to tie some of these latter sentences into fewer so there isn't that much stop and go.
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Composition[edit]

  • Again, try to use less small sentences for better reading
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • is set in time signature of common time with a moderately -> time, with
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

  • debuted at the first position in Ireland -> atop the charts in Ireland
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • reached number two in Europe -> on the European chart
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • number two in the next week -> following
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You should mention the other certifications
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Promotion[edit]

  • Try to expand the promotion part, it it too basic and just repetitive. tr and make it read better by adding some detail and mixing it up a bit
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

References[edit]

  • Ref #5 -> link RS and italicize. Plus add publisher.
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ref #9 & 10 needs publisher
 Done - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A lot of sourcing issues. Too many to list. Several are missing accessdates and publishers, while others need linking and proper formatting. Please go through all of them.
    • Overall I think the article is good, with the exception of the references which need a lot of work. Try and write a bit more for each section so it reads flowingly and not so repetitive and stop and go. Good luck!
Thanks, it took me lot of work to better it up to nominate it as a GA... I'll try my best to improve it further! - Sauloviegas (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Nearly there. The refs look much better, however there are some errors and inconsistencies. SOme of the works that are printed sources are not in italics. Plus, for the charting sources, I would prefer you use official archive. Lastly, you have & Hun Medien on some and . Hung Medien and other inconsistencies. Fix these nitpicks up and we can pass it :)--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, about that... The charts references are generated automatically by Wikipedia, so I can't correct them... And some of it show & Hung Medien, while others show . Hung Medien. I fixed up what it was allowed. And I've already italiziced the printed sources... - Sauloviegas (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. You know, for the future you can just format the table and references yourself instead of following the automatic menu. Anyways, I'm passing it. Review closed.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)