Talk:(You've) Never Been in Love Like This Before

(You've) Never Been in Love Like This Before 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.
Review: April 3, 2024. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:(You've) Never Been in Love Like This Before/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: VirreFriberg (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VirreFriberg - what are your thoughts on the issue raised at 2b below? Before going on to the rest of the review, it'd be good to clarify the matter. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ganesha811! Thank you for reviewing this article!

1. The Radio London site provided the chart positions for the Big L pirate radio station based on the notes of people who actually worked there. I used it to emphasize the importance of pirate radio stations and pop music at the time. However, pirate radio stations are not authorative whatsoever which means this source (and the Pirate Radio chart listing) could potentially be removed from the article.

2. The CD sources (liner notes) were used as they're largely authorative, considering they were released by major record labels (I.E licensed and not bootlegs). They were released by Deram Records, (sublabel of Decca Records, the label Unit 4 + 2 were signed to during the 90s) alongside Repertoire Records and Cherry Red Records sublabel RPM, both of whom specialize in 60s reissues. The liner notes contain some of the few biographies about the group. Most the songs are usually mentioned only in passing during the essays.

I'll address the issues you've cited once I have time (given my somewhat hectic university schedule), so I apologize beforehand for any delays! VirreFriberg (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I think it's probably best to remove the Radio London source and the material dependent on it. As to the CD liner notes, I can 100% believe that they're accurate, but do you think they are sufficiently independent to base so much of the article on? I would say say they're primary sources, which means that this may be an WP:OR issue as well. What do you think? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @Ganesha811. I wouldn't necessarily call the liner notes primary sources, but rather secondary as they were compiled from several prior primary sources (IE record chart listings, newspapers etc). From my understanding it's impossible for a retrospective release to be the primary source. VirreFriberg (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm still not thrilled about it, but AGF and I think it's reasonable to call them secondary sources. Will double-check on neutrality during prose review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The second sentence being about an entirely different song is a little confusing. Please rephrase to keep the focus on this single clearer. Issue addressed. No major issues; after tweaks, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	What makes radiolondon.co.uk a reliable source? Appears to be an amateur/hobbyist personal site. I'm concerned about how much of the article appears to be cited to CD liner notes. Reed, Tracy, and Welch are all used extensively for things beyond instrument credits and track listings. This strikes me as both close to WP:OR (as these would be primary sources) and a problem for neutrality, as none of them can be regarded as independent (presumably they were written at the behest of the publishing companies). What are your thoughts on this issue? Issues addressed/discussed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked the only sources I could get access to (none of the CD liner notes), but no issues found. AGF and pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, nothing else I can find
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	pass, no issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reviews are accurately summarized, no major absences that I can see
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use and properly tagged, the other also all good. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The two existing illustrations are sufficient, though a picture of the band wouldn't go amiss if one is available (I suspect one is not).
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.