Talk:Trouble (Coldplay song)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Lead
- A bit short, but should also only be one paragraph, per WP:LEAD.
- Writing
- "The mixing, however, was redone because it was sent back that fell shortly of the desired quality." This doesn't make sense.
- What happened once it was remixed?
- Lyrics
- "Like the song "Yellow", Martin wrote "Trouble" with the repetitive use of the word trouble." It's not clear whether Yellow had repetitive use of the word yellow or trouble. It suggests the latter at the moment. Which is correct?
- A very short section with two very short pars. Can you expand this at all?
- Release
- "American actor Sylvester Stallone was interested to use the song for the soundtrack of his film, but the band declined." Which film?
- "It has reached number 10 on the UK Singles Chart, making it the band's second Top 10 single in the UK after "Yellow"." Should probably be "It reached ..." unless it is still in the charts.
- "It has reached number 23 on the Billboard Adult Top 40 and 38 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks." Ditto
- Music videos
- Does the one reference cover the entire section?
- It only supports the last two sentence. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- "The original European version of the music video for "Trouble" was directed by British director Sophie Muller."
- "In October 2001, a US version of the music video was created. The video is directed by English film director Tim Pope" Peanut4 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- As an outside editor, I've fixed the two "It has" instances in the release section. Regards, Jamie☆S93 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: A discussion about the grammar is carried here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Singles_that_are_no_longer_charting. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are no responses, so I removed "has", temporarily for this review not to be delayed. Once it gets the consensus, I'll reflect it in the page, either to change or as is. Anymore concerns? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall: