Talk:Deuces (song)

Deuces (song) 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
Date	Process	Result
June 19, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should we make a page for no bullshit too?[edit]

Tell me your thoughts on my talk page or here, thanks. (98.231.218.47 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deuces (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 15:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Links: Fixed 2 links, changed url to another one. Ref. #19 has "connection timeout" issues.
Dablinks: Ok.
Images: Yes.

Images status: Checked.

Sample: Yes.
Background and composition: Ok.
Critical response: Ok.
Chart performance: Ok.
Music video: Ok.
Live performances and remixes:

Minor fixes: "added the setlist" >> "added to the setlist"
Minor fixes: "writing that 'A tatted'" >> "writing 'A tatted'"

Tracklisting: Ok.
Credits: Ok.
Charts:

Minor fixes: Separated year-end charts.

Release history: Ok.
References: Ok.

—Hahc 21 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict[edit]

As no major issues appeared on the article, and the minor ones has been addressed:

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:
· · ·

—Hahc 21 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]