Jump to content

Talk:Fight for This Love/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to Wikipedia:Good article criteria

1 a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;

The prose is okay but could be improved, some redundant wording: first entirely solo => first solo
The spelling is America English and British English, colour, favorable. Be consistence one way or the other. There are some mistakes, uncredited => unaccredited, lipsync => lip-sync, protege => protégé, certifed=> certified

1 (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

The lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, please ensure that the lead is a summary of the main body of the article. There are items in the lead not in the main text, i.e "Topmodel by Heidi Klum". References in the lead do not seem required in this lead and can therefore all be moved to the main body.
Disambiguous links. X Factor in the lead, Balmain in music video, DR. in ref 35, UOL in ref 82.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

There is bits unsourced, Last sentence in Background and composition. Most of the Music video section. Live performances, sentence in the middle starting "She wore black leggings".
Infobox: it appears Recorded,Genre,Length,Label,Writer(s),Producer are unsourced or conflicting with main body text.
Reference 1 thesun.co.uk is an unreliable source, as is twitter ref 8 & 15, if this has recently changed please point to the discussion. Reference 33 googlenews is dead. Ref 47 - msn is also dead.
Some bits missing. Germany Catalogue# for single. UK release date is incorrect, it was 18 October as one reference says, maybe split into two lines?

:Infobox says B-side is "Didn't I" but does not indicate this is UK only.Striked, it wasn't UK only.

3. Broad in its coverage:

Generally good, there is not much coverage of the X-factor performance prior to the day of it's release, it maybe good to recheck that. The harem style trousers would be worth a comment as that was repeated in later live shows, also Simon Cowells comment after the performance. Consider a sentence explaining that promoting the single and her relationship with ashley cole was as the same time.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Seems good on that front. Remove only from 'In Belgium it only managed top-twenty'

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes, stable. Low activity.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images

A third image would be desirable, maybe from the live performance. The two existing images are not free.
Had a look on commons and Flickr but nothing suitable available.

Other comments. Hungarian Airplay Chart date, Succeeded by, this information is incomplete

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for today, will recheck after the dead/unreliable referenced have been updated. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments (part 1) from SunCreator (talk)
;Response

Thanks for taking the review on. I've made a start. Can you please let me know what you think? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy at the improvements made to the article, here are some more things to consider:

A credits and personnel section is advisable/normal. Song writers could go in the writing and composition.
I didn't mention before, thesun.co.uk is used also as ref #47
singlechart template may want looking at. It says 'Cheryl Cole - {{{song}}}' rather then 'Cheryl Cole - Fight for This Love'

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_53#The_Sun seems to indicate The Sun may be considered a reliable source. However, hopefully a better source can be found for all the information. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, thanks for the feedback. I've been ahead and done some more work today including your recommendations above. I was thinking of uploading a sound snippet. would you approve? What do you think so far? Also is there anyway this image from the guardian could be used in the music video section instead? also is there anyway to put a performance image in too? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead. I agree with your suggestions. The performance was more significant than the video due to the X-factor audience figures referenced already. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the questions regarding the image from the guardian newspaper? can i upload it in place of the other? and is it possible to obtain and upload an image from a performance? (where might be a good source?) Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What aspect of the guardian picture is preferrable to the current one?(Fine I see it connects with 'focus on fashion and dance' in the text.) There is no free images for the performance, so take your pick within the non-free license [1] or [2] perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i've just watched the video again and realised that the current image is satisfactory. Imma upload a performance one now... regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments (part 2) from SunCreator (talk)
;Some more
 Done link for DR could not be found so removed.
  • Two links to youtube video, but they are not the same.
Not sure what you mean by this.
 Done
  • The uploaded performance image is not low resolution, it's the same as the original.
 Done Uploaded a lower resolution one which is also smaller.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think that's what you meant right? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The youtube video, one is in the infobox and the other in the External link. Firstly I question if two are required. But if you check they link to different places.
WP:OVERLINKING is still an issue, I gave iTunes as an example, there are many other multiple links in the reference section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done those issues are now resolved. (im pretty sure i've nabbed all (if not all then 99% of them) the overlinking within the references section). Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References 48(okay, first occurance),50,51,52,53,54,55 require attention. Is it necessary to link every country Sweden, Norway, Spain, etc., I doubt it, see Wikipedia:Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right i see now. Sorry i didn't realise. its because REFLINKS was used in the article and this is the outcome... its links everything :( ... i'll get onto it now. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dare i say the referencing has now been resolved? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not while it has twitter. Removing thesun.co.uk would be a useful objective as well. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed both. (sun ref wasnt required and removed info source from twitter). regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Done, All of the above has been resolved plus i've added additional information about the credits for the b-side and i've made several other minor corrections. practically re-written the compostion/writing section as i didnt realise editors had grossly misquoted the text. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments (part 3) from SunCreator (talk)
::Well done, I thought it might of been a little overwhelming, but kudos to you. One link I checked, the Germany one, how [http://translate.google.com/#de
Resolved comments from Candyo32 (talk · contribs)
:::I just stopped by and thought it was noteworthy to add that the references in the article need to be placed after the period. Candyo32 (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i'm not sure what you mean by after the 'period'. could you explain please (or even better, give an example)? Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for not explaining. Like now a sentence goes: The song is a midtempo[5] R&B-styled pop[6] song with a synthy production[5] and dance[7] influences, written in the key of E minor with a time signature in common time and a tempo of 123 beats per minute.


Correct: The song is midtempo, R&B-styled pop song with a synthy production, and dance influences, written in the key of E minor with a time signature in common time and a tempo of 123 beats per minute.[5][6][7] I've always been told this in several GA reviews, so I assume it is somewhere in WP:MOS.

WP:FN mentions nothing about placing notes after the period. I have personally always preferred put references directly next to the source of information that they relate to and it helps reduce the claims that x information is sourced in y reference.
It's WP:REFPUN "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence" but I not believe it applies in WP:GACR anyway. Useless the article has references in the lead; which for this article it does not. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in other things, ref #16 needs to be fixed, and I would check bad to make sure all sources are verifiable and some unsourced information (ex. the key and bpm, which I assume is available on musicnotes.com). I was also told once that Digital Spy shouldn't be used because they were accused of plagarism. Also the critical review section looks a bit messy, maybe you should paraphrase some of the reviews, and this is the first time i've seen the stars used in such a way on a music article. I would also suggest splitting the section into a whole "Critical reception" and "Chart performance" sections, if not at least change Critical reviews to "Critical reception". Not trying to take over the review, lol, but one last thing, I don't think the lead is sufficient with WP:LEAD. It should include writing, and composition information. Also, (this is the last thing haha) make sure numbers under one hundred are spelled out (ex. 13 --> thirteen) Candyo32 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per MOS:NUM only numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Thanks for the other comments though, i will look into them. regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with active NME magazine link. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted however according the nominator the image may not be saveable because they written description is well sourced and accurate enough to portray the outfit in words. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments (part 4) from SunCreator (talk)
*Critical reception - Fully referenced Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video - It appears Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_41#songfacts is not a reliable source. Anyway the original text should be correctly attributed which is found on http://730.no. this seems like it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synopsis - The first two sentences here are not from the attached ref 41 (guardian) but from ref 42(mobo). The quote "The video - doesn't end. The end sentences of the section is given ref 41 when it uses both ref 41 and 42 for the information. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception - 'X Factor rejects, Kandy Rain' is somewhat a distortion of the original text. Mention of Cole's apparent vulnerability is not in the guardian article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial performance -"the 213,000 copies that Girls Aloud's debut single Sound of the Underground sold in its first week" is not reference. Neither is the "sales of 292,000" on the following sentence. The single Brit award info requires citing to ref 49(Digital Spy). "entered the Irish Singles Chart at number 13, after just two days of the Moto Blanco remix being available digitally"- unsourced. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing - the Catalogue no for this section comes from where?
Comments regarding new suggested changes.
  • Right at the moment i'm househunting so im quite busy as well as me having university exams so i won't be able to do these straight away. in fact not until Tuesday 8 June 2010 at the earliest though i will still be peaking on wikipedia every now and then to see if there's anything urgent. Feel free to keep me updated and A.S.A.P i will resolve (or attempt to) resolve the issues.
  • As for the catalogue numbers i sourced two from physical CDs that i have and the others from Iternational copies that friends have got. I recognise that in fact there could have been errors with that because the CD cases contain many different numbers. I cross referenced them with DISCOGs but someone on a different page said it wasn't that accurate. I will check a range of sources (Hung Median, HMV etc.) and find as many of the linkable catalogue numbers possible. Some of the international ones might be unsourceable in which case if there is a large number of questionable catalogue numbers i'll remove all from the release history and simply placed the sourced ones in the tracklisting where necessary.
  • I didn't realise how many errors existed. That's the problem when you nominate someone else's work for GA. This article didn't really have a main contributor and so the styling and referencing was all over the place. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, life comes first. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on vacation now, if someone wishes to take this GA review on please do as I won't be available for several weeks. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I will gladly take over the article, please give me 30ish minutes to read the previous issues and i will start from there. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 01:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues stated about seem to be resolved. Now its my turn :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Issues (L-l-CLK-l-l)
*Link Number 7 should to link to Music Notes, please see 4 Minutes Also , dont italicize.  Done
  • Music Video Needs an image (if you dont know how ask me and ill do it)
  • Throughout the article the is the use of aCharts, needs removed and replaces to proper certifying bodies. Charts chart states the following, "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible."  Done
  • There are alot of Manual of Style violations in your references. Example : Reference 65. You should only italicize News Papers, or printed media, The Guardian, Daily News, Thaindian etc...  Done

 Done

These are simple issues to be corrected, i will do a through reading once these are corrected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I think these issues have been resolved. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Yet, there are alot of MOs violations still, refs 90-104 should not be italicized. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK for some bizarre reason the template automatically puts the 'work' field in italics. By using the '' you can force it to unitalicize. I've done this. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, its a pain, it took me forever to figure out to to fix it when i first starting using wiki. Also read up, there is a new issue that needs corrected. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i've read through and i've done. im just gonna double check all the sources. :) Regardd, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, going through more thoroughly ive notced the following.

  • "with demo being sung by Merrit.[3]" I would add with the demo being sung by Merrit.
  • "A week and a half later on 18 October 2009 the song was released for digital download in the UK[12] and Cole took to" Run on, break up to say. [12]. Cole took took to"
  • "The video saying "The video starts off with" Huh? lol. I think you need where ive striked out.
  • Possibly the last issue is your chart performance. Number less than 100 should be written (ninety-nine) not typed (99). "In Europe the single reached number one in Denmark,[57] Hungary,[58] Norway[59]and the top ten in the Netherlands,[60] Sweden,[61] Switzerland,[2] Czec Republic,[62] Slovakia,[63] Austria,[64] Germany,[65] Russia,[66] Belgium (Wallonia)[67] and France[68] but charted in the top 20 in Belgium (Flanders)[69] and Spain" Waaay over detailed, Chart Performance should summarize the Chart section, thats why we have a chart section. Here are some examples of article ive written to see how to summarize properly, : Baby, Blah Blah Blah and Tik Tok. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Ok i'll work on these changes. But with regards to numbers less than 99 being written instead of typed MOS:NUM doesn't state a preference for that in particular. But if you are sure that is the standard of other similar articles i will follow suit. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. Let me know if there's anything else... Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on User:L-l-CLK-l-l and well done to Lil-unique1 for getting this upto GA standard. A few minor things already mentioned:

  • Track listing for Ireland/UK is 3:46 for reference by Amazon but there are no track times on that Amazon reference.
  • The info box track length says 3:44 but it's 3:46.
  • Hungarian Airplay date is incomplete, it's not still number 1.
  • Catalogue numbers in release history are not available on references or in some cases a different ASIN is given. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fight_for_This_Love/GA1&oldid=1051771803"