Talk:First Time (Lifehouse song)

First Time (Lifehouse song) 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
Date	Process	Result
June 30, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 22, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 11, 2011	Good article reassessment	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Fair use rationale for Image:Lifehouse-firsttime.jpg

Image:Lifehouse-firsttime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:First Time (Lifehouse song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to quick-fail this based on GA criterion #3 (Broad in its coverage). I learned a bit about what critics thought about the song, I learned a lot of details about chart positions, I learned about the promotional video, but I didn't learn much about the song itself. There's one sentence that describes the writing, and there's nothing at all about the recording. (In fact, the Personnel section doesn't indicate that any musicians were involved in the recording/production.)

Tell me whether you think you can start to address this problem in the next seven days, else I will have to fail the nomination. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can address this issue within the next seven days, so I think it would be appropriate to put the article on hold. Please let me know of any other issues you come across. Also, could you be specific with the issues I should address? Thanks. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what City of Blinding Lights looked like when it was passed as a GA. Though I think its "Writing and Recording" and "Composition" sections are a little disorganized, the kind of information in those sections is what I'd like to see in this article. I think you're trying to do that, but maybe you just haven't found a lot of reliable sources to include? (I might be able to help with that, as I have access to a couple of newspaper/magazine databases.) As for other issues, I'd still like to hold off until we've decided whether some expansion can occur. If you'd like to take care of one easy thing: the fair use rationale and caption for the audio clip are insufficient. You need to be really specific about what the clip illustrates in a way that prose cannot (so don't say it illustrates the lyrics!). If you would like to see two examples that survived FAC, check out Lions (album). Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the caption for the audio clip, but the rationale is automatically formatted when you upload a music sample. It seems, in my opinion, that this article does cover the major aspects. For instance, this article includes the writers and producers of the song. Also, it talks about why Wade wrote the song and when it was released. It also talks about the composition of the song (tempo, vocal range, genre) and what critics thought about the song. I am saying this because this article has a similar style to Broken (Lifehouse song), which recently passed as a good article. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is so little detail right now that I cannot say the major aspects have been covered. It doesn't matter that you have a similar article that has passed its GAN – anyone can review a GAN and do a poor job of enforcing the standards. By the way, it's a stretch to say Yahoo! "described" the song as "pop-rock ... with influences of adult alternative". They listed three genres and said nothing about which took precedence. And do you really think that someone at Yahoo! sat down to listen to the song and then decided which genres best fit? Most likely the record company told them to file it under these categories. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at it thoroughly, and comparing it to the other good article nomination I have right now, I see what your comments mean now and I agree with you. I have researched this topic to find reliable sources about the music video, live performances, etc. I think I will take up your offer of your access to newspaper and magazine databases because I cannot find any other reliable sources for the sections that need it the most. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments based on 2011/08/10 changes:

The SongwriterUniverse content is good, but I think it would have more impact if you summarized it in your own words and quoted just one sentence. I think the "something amazing" one is the most insightful.
The sample caption and FUR are still insufficient.
Quoting all those lyrics does not constitute analysis, and might not be fair use, either. I can't think of a featured song article that quotes so many lyrics.
I don't believe the fact that the band posted a video teaser before releasing the video is noteworthy or provides any insight about the song.
What is Nissan Live Sets?
It was kind of a chore to read through the "Promotion" section, which is essentially a list in prose form. You might leave the Soundstage and Pro Bowl sentences as they are, then summarize the morning/late night TV appearances in one sentences without dates.

I'm not yet convinced criterion #3 has been met, but I will check some databases for news/magazine articles. If you would enable email from other Wikipedia users, I will send you the articles I find. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all issues except the last point, which I feel would dramatically reduce the article size if most of the information was put into a sentence. Also, I have enabled email from other users. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that writing concise prose will reduce the length of the article; this is about the reader, not your GA numbers. And the sample caption/FUR still don't cut it; I don't need to hear the sample to appreciate what the caption is telling me. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the prose in the "Promotion" section. I guess I am kind of confused on what you want with the sample caption and fair use rationale. On my last attempt, I based it on the featured article Say Say Say. If you could give me a specific example of what you want with the caption, that would be great. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost there with the caption. It needs to say something quite specific that only hearing the sample would help the reader evaluate. How many thousands of songs could be called "upbeat love songs"? The easiest thing to do is swap out the first portion of the DiBiase quote for the second about "'Hanging by a Moment' meets 'Spin'". Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 01:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your suggestion and updated the sample audio caption and fair use rationale. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other issues that remain? Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 23:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still haven't learned much about the song. This is a C-class article in its current state. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through all of your comments here, you wanted me to expand the article to talk more about the song itself. I have stated when and where the song was recorded and have also found reliable sources that discuss the theme of the song itself with analyzing the lyrics. Also, I have expanded the article to include more reviews of the song and have talked about Wade describing his experience writing songs for the album. Correct me if I am wrong, but I honestly believe that this article covers the major aspects of the song itself and the issues you wanted me to originally fix. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarize what we know about the writing and recording at this point:

It was written by Wade and Cole.
It's about "an initial rush of romance"
It was written and recorded at Ironworks Studios
There may not have been a demo
The released take may have been one of the first

There are really only three insightful pieces of information here, and you can't even confirm the last two. (Who wrote the song and where it was recorded is good info, but even stub-class song articles should have that.) It appears that there's just not much information out there. Look at the first three sections of Under the Bridge – if you had half as much info here, that might be enough to meet criterion #3. I suppose you might have to wait until someone writes a book about the band to get this article to GA status, but if you think there's still info out there that you can track down, I'll wait... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decision: As there have been no changes in the past week, and it seems unlikely that criterion #3 can be met (based on my own digging), I am failing this nomination. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Time (Lifehouse song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602195200/http://fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239 to http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=69239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]