Talk:What Goes Around... Comes Around/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I've been trying to fix the article up to keep it's GA, but there's a lot to be done. Yes, for the most part it's well sourced, but it needs some major work, and I just don't feel as if it should be listed as a GA article. The original GA review wasn't done too well in the first place.

I know it says I'm supposed to review this, but I don't think it's necessary as I don't feel this article is near ready to be a GA. What do you guys think? I know I'm breaking some rules here, but I feel quite strongly that this article should be delisted.

℥^nding·start 22:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by users

I think it is barely of sufficient GA quality. Whether it should be delisted or not, I am not completely sure on. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but at the moment I just don't see anything that can be done with it to keep it as a GA. I removed a whole background section that didn't make any sense at all. It was just about the recording of the album. And the lead is just a mess. ℥^nding·start 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They produced the song for Timberlake's second solo studio album, FutureSex/LoveSounds. --< redundant and obvious and in awkward place

performance of the single was high --< weird

"real" artists --< there actors

What Goes Around.../...Comes Around" was certified multi-platinum. --< does not say where etc

Then in general the Lead just sucks lol.....it truly doesn’t fully describe the article. It also doesn’t flow well, and is listed in a weird way. This is just from a quick glance of the Lead, and by the looks of things....the article doesn’t look good either. If you want me to look at it more in-depth, I will.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment. The sheet music analysis is not complete. Maybe chord progression or something like that? I don't think it fails GA in the present condition. Novice7 | Talk 03:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Legolas. This is better that many GAs. Just some source fixes and it's great. Novice7 | Talk 04:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree as well. I've felt a bit iffy about nominating this, but at the state it was at, I just couldn't take it. Some of the sections still need some rewriting. ℥^nding·start 04:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You could've merged the last two paragraphs of the background to the composition. It makes it much better. Novice7 | Talk 05:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the section that was there mentions the song. It looks like it was taken from the album's article. ℥^nding·start 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, User:ThinkBlue is the one I beleive who promoted this article to GA. Has her input been seeked? If not I strongly suggest that you do so before even thinking of delisting this. This is in better shape than most old song GAs. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've messaged her on her talk page. I think I'm getting a hold of what needs to be done to the article. The lead has been fixed up a bit (it was just downright awful before.) I think maybe this could get to keeping it's GA standard. It'd be great if someone could review it. I know technically I'm supposed to, but I'd like to improve on the article. ℥^nding·start 04:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually was Efe (talk · contribs) Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Messaged him instead. xD Does anyone have any suggestions on impovement here? I've fixed up the lead, removed some unsourced content, added release history, and the certifications. ℥^nding·start 04:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It really needs some fixing but there is no need to delist it if the shortcomings are filled in due time. Concerning the user who promoted it, it is really Efe. He was such a wonderful person. He also did most of B'Day GAs. The problem with his GAs are that they lack definitely some information but he did not do that on purpose. I am currently expanding his GAs (Those of Beyonce) and what i can tell you is that all the additional l information i am putting come articles published in 2008 or 2009 or 2010. So i believe, we should search for recent sources and expand this article a bit. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Things needed to be done

After some fixing, this article should stay a good article. But there are still more things needed to be done. Please treat this section as if you were reviewing it to be a GA and point out anything that needs to be done. Thanks! ℥^nding·start 05:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this reassessment? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)