# Talk:Live Like We're Dying

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live Like We're Dying/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Throughout the article, please link "David Cook" and "digital download" to their correspondence articles, as at the moment they stand out as disambiguations. In the Background section, please add quotation marks around "We Are" as it is a song. Same section, "Allen stated, ""[The song] was actually one that we had listened to really early on, and we kind of just fell in love with it. Everyone did", ---> "Allen stated, "[The song] was actually one that we had listened to really early on, and we kind of just fell in love with it. Everyone did." In the Music video section, please link "19 Entertainment" once.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
"Billboard", "Entertainment Weekly", "USA Today", and "Las Vegas Sun", need to be italicized, since they're magazines or newspaper publications, and to have a consistency with the rest of the other refs. In addition, there's a dead link.
Check.
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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
File:Live Like We're Dying Kris Allen cover.jpg needs a lower resolution.
Check.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've fixed everything, but the publications are show italicized when editing but they are not showing up italicized. Candyo32 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have, and I fixed the publication problem. When you use the "work" format, you're not supposed to add italics, that only works when you use the "publisher" one. Anyways, thank you to Candyo for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)