Talk:Teletubbies say "Eh-oh!"/GA1

GA Review

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed

six good article criteria

:

1. Well written?: Mostly, but MoS problems

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Only half the article is here – the part that discusses what happened after the single was released. But what about the song itself? What is it like musically? What are the themes of it, lyrically? What is the arrangement like, who plays on it, who sings on it? What were the goals of the songwriters in creating it? Even if the song is stupid and annoying, all of this is necessary for it to be a good article, but it's all missing.

In the post-release area, you say it was released in Europe, so you should indicate if it charted in any of those countries. Teletubbies is seen in the US too, was it ever released there? Also, if it has "repeatedly" places in worst-ever lists (which I'm not doubting), you should give at least three examples, not just one.

There are many MoS conformance problems. Please see

MOS:QUOTE#Italics_and_quotations

. If you want them to stand out, blockquote them. Also your citation formatting is a bit off: newspapers should be in italics, story titles are usually in double quotes. If you change those "citation" templates to "cite news", the titles will come out right. The three-letter month abbreviations are a little informal as well.

Also, I think the article name needs to be Teletubbies say "Eh-oh!" per the cover – which show quotes embedded within the song title – and per normal grammatical considerations. Then within the article, the song would be referred to as "Teletubbies say 'Eh-oh!'" But I'm less sure about this than the other points.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I was aware of the MOS issues but shall reconsider them. Note, however, that quotation marks are not usually wanted in article titles - I checked the
relevant policy carefully for this. I suppose they may cause syntactic trouble for search engines and the like. The point of failure - the lack of content about the work itself is well-taken. This arose because the sources don't seem to have much to say about this but I shall look harder. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- See article talk page for response. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]