Talk:White Horse (Taylor Swift song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: •Felix• ^T 19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; ~~:Could we find a way to get some in-line citations in the lead? It is always important to have those opening statements of fact well cited. •Felix• ^T 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

The current lead is just a summary of the rest of the article, and the facts are all eventually cited. Other Good Articles for Swift's songs, such as You Belong with Me and Fearless (Taylor Swift song), do not have any citations in the lead paragraphs. - PM800 (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am most humbled, you are right! I apologize. •Felix• ^T 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

The picture/still of the music video is a little questionable in terms of it fair use rationale, nothing serious enough to keep from being legitimate for GA status though, per other similar images on other song GA's. A suggestion for future use though would be to clean the fair use rationale up a bit for that image (see: File:Taylor Swift - Our Song music video.JPG , for a good example), necessary if this article is to aspire to FA status sometime in the future. •Felix• ^T 05:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.