Talk:Orelsan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 15:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give reviewing this a shot. Wizardman 15:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

There are a lot of unreferenced sections and pieces that need sources. If it were one or two instances I'd just point them out, but there's many. The fact that there's a large paragraph in controversy that is unsourced is a major red flag.
"has drawn him comparisons to American rap legend Eminem on several occasions" Can just say American rapper.
"He also collaborated with Gringe in his initial works and formed the duo Casseurs Flowters with him in 2004." having this in early life feels out of place, especially since you note this at the start of 2004 where it belongs.
2004-10's sentence structure is overall poor. Nearly every sentence, and every paragraph, just starts with "In [date]," with no variation. That needs to be fixed.
" a sarcastic parody on Valentine's Day that attracted great following prompting him to release more of his work online through YouTube and Myspace." if you're going to use stuff like "attracted [a] great following", (fix that) then you need to have sources for that; see my first point.
" In the summer of 2008, he promoted the release of "Changement", his first single released on 13 October 2008, and its music video through the TF1 Video and Nolife TV channels." This sentence reads very awkwardly, and it took me a few times to figure out exactly what it was saying. That last part in particular doesn't feel connected to the rest of the sentence, and i'm not sure what it's trying to say.
There's several one-sentence paragraphs that need to be combined.
His controversy section is as large as the biography. That's another red flag to me, and feels like undue weight. It's not noted in the lead anywhere as well. That on top of the uncited quotes makes me question the section as a whole. I'd be tempted to move part of it into his bio itself for 2009 and delete the excess, leaving the small legal issues as the controversy section instead.
I see several blogs being used as reliable sources, which I question, reference #1 for example.
I see multiple bare URLs in the references that need to be fleshed out.
Overall, after the above is all fixed, this needs a top to bottom copyedit, as the prose is overall not good.

There are just too many problems for me to put this on hold, as it'll take at least several weeks to fix the above, given that the article needs to be pretty much redone. Due to the above significant issues, I'm going to outright fail this. Wizardman 15:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]