Talk:I'm Just Wild About Harry

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I'm Just Wild About Harry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A nice, short article about an interesting subject. I enjoyed reading it and did a little copyediting, but a few things stood out:

1. The first sentence needs a lot of work. I would like to see the parentheses removed and the information worked into the prose. I also think that the names of the writers of Shuffle along should be a separate sentence so that the information is easier to understand.
2. NAACP should be spelled out rather than just giving the abbreviation so that all readers can understand what it is.
3. The long quotation in the "Background" section seems to take the place of the prose. I would recommend working some of the information into your own description rather than just pasting it all it. Perhaps a smaller portion of the quotation can be kept, though.
4. "The title and chorus of the musical's most famous number" - most famous is point of view without a reference. Reference 4 seems to work for this.
5. Italics are used in place of quotation marks throughout the article.
6. The "Structure" section is sparse and could use more information.
7. Overall, I still don't get an impression of how the song was used. It was in the play, but what is going on at the time? Can I assume that there is a character named Harry? Who is wild about him? I recently reviewed Listen (song), which I felt did a good job of explaining how and why the song was used in the movie (ie. she's feeling controlled and the song shows her desire to assert independence).
8. The quotation in the "Reception" section: see my comments on the "Background" quotation.
9. References should be in numerical order when two are used: [4][8], not [8][4].

I am going to place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Eight days have passed with no response and no progress. Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail the nomination. I urge the editor(s) involved to use these suggestions for future improvements to the article. I hope to see this article back at GA once this has been done, as it has definite GA potential and it a very interesting article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:I'm Just Wild About Harry/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   After reading the article, I would like some details to be added, but nothing major that is within the scope of a GA review. I believe this is the only detriment to this article, therefore cannot honestly fail it as GA.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very good image at the top, and further media is provided (rarely for this kind of article), which I consider to be part of this criterion.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, you have a good article! It is well-written, has helping media, is comprehensive in that it misses no major aspects, and obvious stable and neutral. All of the concerns raised during the preview review have been addressed, as far as I can tell, and the article satisfies all GA criteria. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)