Jump to content

Talk:Better Get to Livin'

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBetter Get to Livin' was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 5, 2008Articles for deletionKept
January 12, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Head's Up

[edit]

Referencing other wiki pages is usually frowned upon. Lots42 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed. Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

If anyone feels like writing a critical reception section, here are some quotes:

  • "radio-friendly"[1]
  • "Better Get To Livin' is a surging hymn of positivity which offers a remedy to all that ails us... essentially, snap out of it!"[2]
  • "Better Get To Livin' is a strident ode to the lessons that Parton's learned in a lifetime spent in an arena where men most definitely are men and women are expected to be grateful. It sets the tone for most of the album."[3]
  • "cloyingly wise... catchy"[4]
  • "a classic kick-in-the-pants inspirational"[5]
  • "Parton’s latest, “Better Get To Livin’,” should have been a hit... Dolly sounds as good (maybe better) than she ever has."[6]
  • "...one of the best singles of the year, sharply written with lyrics that both comfort and challenge its listeners."[7]

Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the reception section. Kaldari (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music and structure

[edit]

"electric guitar-driven, mid-tempo country-rock groove" - iTunes Album Notes, Better Get to Livin' - Single
Kaldari (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know if iTunes can be considered a Reliable Source or not. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The iTunes single doesn't seem to exist anymore, so the above quote is no longer verifiable (even if it were reliable) :( Kaldari (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Better Get to Livin'/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • Dolly Parton On-Line is not a reliable source. However, the interview from which you quote was originally published as a press release and can be found here.
    • Unless The 9513 and Monsters and Critics have received some independent coverage, they are not reliable sources.
      • I have mixed feelings about The 9513. It is technically a commercial "blog", but it is also one of the most professional and respected country music review sites on the internet (with a paid staff of reviewers). 15 years ago it would have been a print magazine instead of a website, but it still calls itself a blog, so does it qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia standards? Hard to say. I would consider it borderline. Monsters and Critics is a similar situation. It calls itself a "blog", but it's actually a huge commercial website with more than a dozen paid writers. When does a website cross over from being a "blog" to a "news website"? Maybe I should bring this issue up at WP:RS.
        • After reading through WP:SPS and WP:RS, I feel like there's a decent case for including the two sources in the article. The Wikipedia guidelines advise not using self-published blogs, or sources not written by experts in the field. The 9513 writers are definitely experts in the field of country music, and Monsters and Critics are arguably experts in the field of music reviewing. Both are well established commercial websites with professional writers, so I don't think they would be considered self-published blogs by most standards. What are your thoughts on this?
          • I can probably go with that. You can point me to some site/publication that calls them experts? Or show me where the critics in questions have previously written for a reliable source? —Zeagler (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know that The 9513's Jim Malec has contributed to American Songwriter, a very long established songwriting magazine, but his website has been suspended. There hasn't been any dispute previously about The 9513's reliablity, and I know that its pages show up in Google News searches, so it must be reliable if Google News thinks it is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • I know very little about the song/recording itself after reading this article, except for its lyrical bent. Details from the recording session would be helpful. (Surely something of use can be found in the one hundred or so search results for "Better Get to Livin'" on Factiva. Your local library probably has access if you don't.) And if no description of the song can be found from someone directly involved in its creation, some descriptions from critics would be fine.
      • I only get 20 matches on Factiva: 8 publications and 12 websites. I would be very surprised if there were in fact "hundreds".
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • "only received moderate airplay" – 'only' and 'moderate' are POV
    • "Despite the song's mediocre chart performance..." – 'mediocre'
      • I'm trying to convey the idea that the song didn't perform as well on the charts as was expected (or hoped perhaps). There are a couple sources for this, but none that really state it explicitly enough to quote, for example, the cited source states that the song "sputtered at No. 48." How about "Despite what some considered to be mediocre chart performance..."? Or should I just drop the clause completely?
    • Also in the above sentence, 'despite' implies a correlation between chart performance and critical reception.
      • Isn't there usually a correlation (although sometimes a weak one) between chart performance and critical reception?
    • It is a stretch to say Steven Lippman called the video extremely popular. Just use the direct quote: "which is huge for a record that's not even out yet".
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Most of this should be easy fixes; covering the missing 'major aspects' will be difficult...so I'll give you as much time as you need so long as progress is being made. —Zeagler (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually on vacation right now, but I should be able to respond to the rest of these after new years. Sorry for the delay. Kaldari (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen any progress towards meeting criterion 3, so I'm going to have to fail for now. —Zeagler (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zeagler, sorry for the delay. I've scoured every source I can get my hands on and I have not been able to find any reliably-sourced information on the recording of the song or the music content of the song. I managed to piece together the personnel info, but see my comments on that below. I did manage to find one tidbit about 2 of the back-up singers which I've added to the article. I also added a new section on Notable performances since that was the only other thing I was able to find new information on. I've totally exhausted my resources. I really don't think there are any reliably-sourced facts about this song that are not in the article at this point. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to change my opinion, but if you renominate it might get picked up by a more sympathetic reviewer. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

[edit]

By combining the track credits from Best Buy[8] with the album credits from All Music,[9] I was able to come up with the following personnel credits for the song:

  • Jennifer O'Brien - vocals
  • Rebecca Isaacs Bowman - vocals
  • Paul Hollowell - piano
  • Jerry McPherson - electric guitar
  • Lonnie Wilson - drums
  • Paul Franklin - guitar
  • Sonya Isaacs - vocals
  • Steve Mackey - bass
  • Vicki Hampton - vocals
  • Dave Talbot - banjo
  • Richard Dennison - vocals

Unfortunately, this probably constitutes original research, and I doubt Best Buy is considered a reliable source (although they are undoubtedly pulling their data from some commercial service like Gracenote). Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Better_Get_to_Livin%27&oldid=1199935523"