Talk:Yeah! (Usher song)/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Infobox

Red-link for Robert McDowell.
Remove certification because of inconsistency (since there are many more certifications).

Lead

as the lead single from his hit fourth studio album Confessions -> "hit"? POVish and unnecessary. Needs year of release after album e.g. Confessions (2005)
Again, red-link.
The song features vocals from Lil Jon and Ludacris. The song was remixed with Tego Calderón. I can start to see many truncated sentences.
Billboard needs to be in italics.
the longest-running of 2004, and its huge success added to Usher's hit success that year. -> longest-running what? "Usher's hit success that year" is kind of unnecessary to the article in question.
one of the fastest selling hip hop songs ever -> this needs clarification, and should be reworded (sounds POVish)
The song ranks second on the... -> Should be in past tense
Remove reference in the lead.
Usher performed "Yeah!" at the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2008 as runway soundtrack. -> grammar sounds poor but I may be wrong
"The song" is repeating a lot in the lead which needs fixing.
The lead is just one big bulky paragraph, maybe separating into two?

Background and composition

Reception

The songs rights were released to the creators of Glee for the final song for their season two finale. It was sung by the Crawford County Girls Choir, a competing group in the National Show Choir Competition. -> songs is gramatically incorrect, this sentence needs verification with a source

Chart performance

Seven weeks later, it peaked on the chart at number one -> "on the chart" is redundant
for reaching one million shipments -> awkward prose
"Yeah!" became the 2004's best-performing single in the United States -> doesn't make sense.
The single ranks at number -> again, needs to be past tense. "at" is unnecessary
Internationally, "Yeah!" received similar responses, topping many charts. -> awkward prose
The single reached number 1 in the Australia Singles Top 50 -> "1" should be in words, "in the" is incorrect, "Top 50" is unnecessary and should be replaces with "chart".
Instead of listing the actual chart names (e.g. Austria Singles top 75) you could write "on the singles charts in ...."
Overall, the single charted to different charts worldwide for a year, early in 2004 to early in 2005 -> awkward prose, doesn't make sense
The single was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for selling 70,000 units -> wrong, it is based on shipments not sales
At the 2004 Year Ender charts -> "at"? "year ender"? huh?
It was certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand. -> needs verification with a source

Music video

The treatment was accompanied of how Usher wanted to be portrayed in the video, particularly showcasing his dance moves. -> this appears gramatically incorrect or awkward
I noticed that it doesn't have much structure to it, there aren't subsections like "background" and "sypnosis".

Track listings

Charts

The "year end charts" for UK and US are unsourced.
The certifications table: "sales certified" doesn't make sense. The "date" column is unnecessary.

References They are in quite bad condition:

ref. 1 -> needs publisher, date and access date
ref. 2 -> MTV News should not be in italics, the publisher is Viacom.
ref. 3 -> needs date, and the same issue as ref. 2
ref. 5 -> what is "indswept Holdings"? The publisher is Sony ATV Music Publishing
ref. 6 -> same as 2 and 3
ref. 7 & 8 -> same as 2 and 3
ref 9 & 10 -> dead links
ref 13 -> dead link
ref 15 -> publisher is Rovi Corporation
ref. 20 -> same as 2, 3, 7, 8
ref. 24 -> same as above
ref. 30 -> ARIA should be in brackets
ref. 31 -> publisher shouldn't be in italics
ref. 32 -> same as 2, 3, etc.
ref. 56 -> write full publisher + not in italics
ref. 57-67 -> publishers need fixing
ref. 70 -> publisher is Recording Industry Association of New Zealand
ref. 71-74 -> publishers need fixing.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The article looks okay at first glance, but after thoroughly going through everything I can see there are many issues. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the editor who promoted the article about the GAN, but no attempt has been made to fix the issues. Sorry but that's a delist. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]