Talk:We're New Here

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleWe're New Here has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject iconR&B and Soul Music Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead edits

talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't be so precious.

WP:OWN. 79.97.92.28 (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


I'm new here is an album by gil scott-heron. We're new here is a remix of I'm new here, which was performed by jamie xx. It is not a remix album by gil scott-heron and jamie xx, as scott-heron was not involved in the remixing. What is the problem here? 79.97.92.28 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited in the article's body; both were credited.
talk) 17:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
And do not make the change without consensus here first.
talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:We're New Here/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk2me) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the
    list incorporation
    :
  2. Is it
    source spot-check
    ?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
    the layout style guideline
    :
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it 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. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
    edit war
    or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Minor issues

Infobox
  • No issues
Lead
  • No issues
Background
  • No issues
Recording
  • No issues
Music
  • No issues
Release and promotion
  • "The album was released by XL Recordings and Young Turks Records on February 21..." – Specify year
Reception
  • No issues
Track listing
  • "Sample credits" information needs references to validate information
Personnel
  • No issues
Charts
  • No issues
References
  • Organize references by using {{reflist|2}}
  • Reference 3 – Link is not working
  • Reference 21 – NME needs to be wiki-linked
  • Reference 34 – Not sure if this source is reliable
External links
  • Not sure if first bullet point is needed
I fixed up most of the things you addressed, but have only a couple of questions. "Reference 34" cites the album's official website for information about its release formats, so for that it should be reliable. Also, according to
talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not see the official website at the bottom of the page in Reference 34. When talking about the first bullet point, I was referring to making it more specific than "Official website". Instead, try "We're New Here official website". - Rp0211 (talk2me) 22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed the link "Official album website".
talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Since all of the issues have been addressed, I feel confident passing this article now. Congratulations and keep up the good work! - Rp0211 (talk2me) 03:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put the article on hold at this time. There are only a few minor issues listed above that are keeping the article from reaching GA status. Once these issues have been fixed, I will feel confident to put this article in good article status. I will give you the general seven days to fix the mistakes and/or debate the items you believe do not affect GA status.- Rp0211 (talk2me) 20:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We%27re_New_Here&oldid=1211566169"