Jump to content

Talk:Broken (Lifehouse song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBroken (Lifehouse 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
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Usage in the media

[edit]

Part of the song was edited to create the lyric 'I may have lost my way home'.

Can we get a citation on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.100.122 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken (Lifehouse song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Will begin shortly.[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Info box
  1. Who produced the song? (List under Writer).
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead info
  1. "fourth studio album, Who We Are." → Put (2007) are Who We Are.
 Not done What do you mean by this? Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should put the year the album was released in brackets the first time you mention the album, like this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "its instrumental use" → Re-word. "the use of instrumental in the song". Can you expand on this a bit, seems a bit short.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and release
  1. ""Broken" was first released with the band's fourth studio album, Who We Are, on June 18, 2007.[4]" → This reads a bit awkward, the order of the words.
 Not done How so? Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Broken was released as the lead single from the album on June 18, 2007. (You've already said the album name in the previous lines). Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and critical reception

These sections are quite small, so I recommend this:

  1. Re-name the first section "Background, release and composition". Put the Composition info into the section above and put the two reviews of the song at the end of the paragraph. So you know what I mean, look here for an idea on how to structure it. This way, the section looks a lot stronger and informational than having to weak and short looking sections.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also, when talking about a review, it is better to start like this: "Alex Lai of Contactmusic.com described the song.....". Do this for both reviews given.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why is slow in quotation marks? Doesn't need to be.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chart performance
  1. Put "US" before Billboard Hot 100. People might not know which chart the country is for.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "It moved around for several weeks" → "It fluctuated on the chart for several weeks, before reaching its peak of eighty-three".
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The song debuted at number seventy on the Billboard Digital Songs chart.[12] It peaked at number thirty-eight after being on the chart for three non-consecutive weeks.[14]" → Don't put a full stop after [12], keep the flow going because it makes it labouring to read, you are still talking about the same thing, so use a comma (,).
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And same again for this " On the Billboard Adult Pop Songs chart, the song debuted at number thiry-eight for the week of August 2, 2008.[12] After moving around the chart for thirty-two consecutive weeks, the song eventually peaked at number seven.[15]"
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Television appearances

First, it should be Live performances, secondly, this is not notable enough to warrant it's own section as it is too small, and thirdly, I want to you make these changes:

  1. Re-name the Music video title to Promotion.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Create a subsection that says Music Video (using three '=' either side instead of two '=' either side).
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Remove the titles Background and Synopsis, but keep as two separate paragraphs.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Then, create another sub-section that says Live performances, and put that info here. The remove the previous Television performances section.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. (Can you not find any more info about the Live performances? Just to pad it out a bit.
 Done I researched all the live performances I could find. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This way, the is more structure in the article and no weak or awkward sections.

  • Credits and personal
  1. You should really write a line saying something along the lines of "Credits adapted from Allmusic.com" or something like this.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts
  1. No issues.
  • References
  1. I will give an example of how your references should be formatted: cite web/news (depending on which) last=(Surname, if there is one) first=(First name, if there is one) url= title= work= publisher= date=(If available, usually is) accessdate=. I'm saying this because quite a lot of your references don't include a work parameter.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Also, Billboard references should look like this (you will have to click edit on this page to see properly): work=Billboard publisher=Prometheus Global Media. Plus, you only need to link the first instance, not every single solitary one.
 Done Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And Apple Inc references should look like this: work=iTunes Store publisher=Apple Inc.
 Not done The "work=" parameter italicizes works and is only used for print sources, such as a newspaper or magazine. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No problematic links.
    I've been told to italicise iTunes in the past, so I'm just passing that onto you, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    I've been told that the "work=" parameter should only be used if the source is a print source. Since iTunes Store is not a print source, I do not use the parameter here. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad effort, there is some re-organising to be done and you need to sort out the references. On hold for 7 days. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the issues, except three that are listed above. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to those three. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to all of the issues. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Passed :) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_(Lifehouse_song)&oldid=1195553229"