GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

This is a large article so will run into tomorrow, yet the review is much due! --K. Peake 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Background

Composition

Thanks for not quick failing. Fixed those requests. igordebraga 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Igordebraga There are some missed here - first of all you need to add a sentence specifying this was released as the album's lead single separately from the introduction to it as from the studio album, change the pop and r&b song description to using the prose I mentioned since it does not read right currently and remove the refs for the critical reception. Remove the song next to accompanying music video since this implies it accompanied the song, also remove the ref for Janet Jackson and Madonna. Outside of this, all is good! --K. Peake 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Chart performance

Music video

Production

Synopsis

Reception and impact

Live performances

Impact

Track listing and formats

Credits and personnel

Charts

Weekly charts

Year-end charts

Decade-end charts

Certifications

Release history

References

Final comments and verdict

  • @Igordebraga: I have done some copyediting and looked through now – there is still some work for you to do, however. Please remove pipe on Billboard in the commercial peformance section; change "It became the first of Lopez's 17 top ten hits" → "The song became the first of Lopez's 17 top 10 hits"; pipe Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems to Broadcast Data Systems; re-invoke the ref at "is under observation"; add a comma after Best Pop Video; cite MTV News and CNN as publishers; and wikilink Gulf News. --K. Peake 15:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Anything else? igordebraga 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Igordebraga: You still have not unlinked Billboard at the duplicate link in the sentence of commercial performance about their comments on Work Group's images and in the lead, the song title should be mentioned at the part about her promoting it with performance. --K. Peake 07:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (missed the one in the commercial section because I delinked one in critical reception). igordebraga 21:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Pass now, a quicker response from me this time! --K. Peake 07:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]