Talk:Goodbye (The Humans song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodbye (The Humans song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hadger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll be starting this review shortly. I see that a substantial part of this article deals with Eurovision; I'm not well-informed on this topic, so please let me know if any of my comments on the section don't make sense. I also don't speak Romanian and will be using Google Chrome's page translation feature for any sources in Romanian, so let me know if that results in any mistakes on my part. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section

• The first paragraph is pretty well written. The only major issue I could find is that the phrase "an urge to not give up on one's dreams" is too close to Caramarcu's quote in the second paragraph of the "Background and composition" section (see WP:Close paraphrasing), so it should be reworded.

 Done I have reworded it a tiny bit; is it better now?

"Not giving up on one's dreams" is still a bit too close to the quote; could this be reworded?

I do not know another formulation for this. I've also done a research on the internet for another alternative formulation, but couldn't find anything. Do you have any ideas? Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I've found something that works. I've edited it into the article; let me know if there are any issues. Hadger (talk)

(contribs) 09:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: It works for me as well... Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the word "eventually" from the phrase "the country eventually failed to qualify"; it sounds a bit awkward there.

 Done

• The meaning of "Subtle choreography" is unclear; I think you should find a word more precise than "subtle".

 Done I've just removed it, as I now realize that detail is not particularly relevant to the topic.

• "Referencing" sounds better as "representing".

 Done I think you've already edited this detail.

• "Lost of identity" should be "loss of identity".

 Done

• The beginning of the last sentence is worded a bit awkwardly; it would sound better as "Music critics gave the song itself mostly generally negative reviews". Also something to note: I think "mostly" works better than "generally" here, since it's less vague. Never mind; "generally" is better here as it describes the nature of the reviews.

 Done

• The lead section says that reviewers praised Caramarcu's vocals, but I can only find a single critic (in the Wiwibloggs) source who says that, so it's somewhat inaccurate to say that multiple reviewers had that sentiment (unless you can find another review that praises Caramarcu's vocals). The same problem exists for the phrase "noted its lack of energy". I think the best way to handle this would be to simply say that critics found the song to be underwhelming; that would concisely capture the general mood of critics' reviews.

 Done I've never thought of this beautiful alternative ("underwhelming"). Thanks! I also removed the comment on Caramarcu's voice as, indeed, only one single critic wrote about that.

• I think the word "predicted" borders on original research here, since it can be interpreted as Wikipedia giving special attention to the accuracy of their judgment even though there aren't other reliable sources that do so. I would change it to "some expressed doubt that Romania would qualify".

 Done

• The beginning of the first sentence of the third paragraph can be made more concise: "To promote 'Goodbye',".

 Done

• "the band made various appearances to perform the song" sounds better as "the band performed the song on multiple occasions".

 Done

• "the use of white masks to allude to" sounds better as "uses white masks to allude to".

 Done

• "Social equality" is the wrong phrase to use here, since it refers to a state of equality of social and economic conditions. "it refers to the equality of people" would more accurately reflect the quote in the "Promotion" section.

 Done

Overall, this lead section is very well-done. It does a great job summarizing the key points of the article clearly and concisely; a reader learns a lot about the song and its performance in Eurovision by reading it. It just needs these fixes and then the lead section will be Good article-quality.

Thank you! I think I've done everything here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Background and composition

• "Ballad" should be wikilinked sentimental ballad for clarity, since ballad can be used to refer to the verse form (see ballad) and the musical style.

 Done Linked here and in the lead.

• "the band revealed that the song also discusses" - "Revealed" is a strong word here; "said" or "stated" would be better and would maintain a neutral tone.

 Done

• "its overcoming" sounds better as "overcoming it"

 Done

• Benny Royston compares the song's message to Israel, France, and Italy's "theme[s] of public consciousness"; this should be made clear.

 Done Reworded the whole sentence a tiny bit.

• "requests her love interest not to cry" is too close to the phrase "request for us not to cry" from the Wiwiblogg source; this should be reworded. Also, is there a source indicating that the lyrics are speaking to a love interest?

There isn't any source telling that it's a love interest Caramarcu sings to, but rereading the sentence, I've realized it isn't that important for the article, so I've removed it altogether.

• "lasting three minutes" is a bit confusing here; I think the best way to deal with that phrase is to work it into the first paragraph of this section.

 Done

Good work here overall; it's clear that a lot of research went into it, and it paid off. There's a lot of great information in this section regarding the music and lyrics.

Thank you! I expanded and GA-nominated several Eurovision entries in the past months, but most of the articles I've expanded were from old(er) Eurovision editions. It's always easier to write an article step by step during the Eurovision season (like I did here), as sources on the internet appear gradually. Otherwise, you will have to browse through tons of sources that already exist. If that makes any sense... . Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's why I tend to find myself gravitating toward editing articles on newer songs as well. There's a lot less information to sort through, so it's not as overwhelming. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Same thoughts on this... Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• This might be a problem with Google Translate: does the reviewer explicitly say that the song is "unspectacular"? If not, it might be more accurate to say that the reviewer "found the song to be unspectacular".

 Done More accurate, indeed.

• Remove "for the first time" at the end of the second sentence, since that's not clearly indicated by the reviewer.

I've added an extra ref to cite that, as it's important. Romania has never failed to qualify for the contest's final beforehand and (until this year ) was one of the few countries to achieve this feat.

That works. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is the latter part of the last sentence of the 20 minutes review according to Google Translate: "it retains all its chances to qualify for the final." If this translation is incorrect, don't worry about it; if this is a correct translation, the comment on 20 minutes's review needs to be changed to properly reflect it.

I just removed that, as otherwise that author's opinion isn't particularly relevant. I also used Google Translate and probably connected "retains" with the Romanian language word "reține", which means "to hold back". Sorry!

• I think it should be made clear that Wiwibloggs includes multiple reviews from individual reviewers. It might also be more clear to attribute the comments to individual reviewers.

 Done I tried to make clear that there are several individual reviews, but attruibuting things to critics doesn't seem right to me, as they are not mentioned with their full name. Also, I think the summary of their opininions is enough, but I can change it if you want me to.

That works; it's clear to readers that these are comments from individual reviewers rather than an overall consensus among them, so the changes you've made work.

• I made some small wording changes; let me know if there's an issue with them.

No issues.

• The use of the word "however" in the sentence "Lead singer Caramarcu, however," draws a connection between the sources in which Wikipedia implies that what Caramarcu is saying is incorrect; I would remove that word altogether and let the reader decide if they want to draw any connections.

 Done

• "minor" is a bit vague - does it refer to the nature of the criticism or the amount of criticism? Based on one of the interviews and the preceding sentence, I'm guessing it's the latter; this should be made more clear.

 Done Is it better now?

Yep, its meaning is clear now. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nice work here! I especially liked the inclusion of the audience poll and the band's response.

Thank you very much! Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotion

• I went ahead and changed "Filmed by Anthony Icuagu" to "Directed by Anthony Icuagu" since that's what the source said. Let me know if this is an issue.

No issue.

• Is Urban.ro a reliable source? It appears to be a blog run by a group of four people (see [1], [2]).

I think it is reliable, or at least I had no problems when using it for my fellow GAs. The website was formerly called "Monden.info" and was more of a blog, but right now it's gained a wider following and seems to be reliable overall. I'll let you decide, though.

Based on their about page, they seem at least somewhat reputable, and considering the fact that the information they're cited for isn't easy to get wrong (a direct quote from the band and the name of a director), I believe this source works here.

• "Sporting" should be changed to a word with a less promotional tone ("wearing" would work).

 Done

• The quote beginning "in essence" should be attributed to its speaker within the text.

 Done The source doesn't reference a speaker, but the band overall. Added that, though.

• "while commencing a European tour" sounds better as "and commenced a European tour"

 Done You've already edited that.

• "A notable destination" should be removed; see WP:Words to watch#Editorializing.

 Done

Again, nice work!

I'll be sure to get to the remaining sections (especially the "At Eurovision" section) and to check the media in the article.

@Hadger: Thank you for your time to conduct such a detailed review. I have responded to all your comments so far. Before you dive into "At Eurovision", I suggest you watch The Humans' live performance here to get a better idea of what I'm talking about (if you have time), as some things may be confusing when reading. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I wasn't able to watch the video since it's not available in my country, but it wasn't an issue; the description of the music video was very well-written and very clear. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: Here's an alternative link if you still want to watch the performance... I'll get to your comments a bit later. Thanks again! Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

National Selection

• Source for the submission window?

 Done I added another ref.

• This source (from the end of the first sentence) says that auditions took place 19, 20, and 21 December, but the article says they took place 19 and 20 December. Also, the audition dates should be sourced.

 Done I added the source for the audition dates.

• "100% televoting" sounds a bit awkward; I don't even think the word "100%" is needed, since there's nothing indicating that the winners were determined by anything else.

 Done

• Wikilink "televoting".

 Done

• "qualified in first place for the final with 58 points" - this is a bit unclear; how about "placed first with 58 points (including the maximum of 12 points from four jurors), qualifying for the final"?

 Done Sounds indeed better

• There are some spots where this section goes into unnecessary detail (see [[WP:GACR|Good article criterion 3b). Stating who performed before and after The Humans during the semi-final is unnecessary, as is stating who performed before them in the final round. The inclusion of who placed second at the end of this paragraph is also unnecessary. Removing these details will make the section more concise without being detrimental to its purpose: to inform readers about "Goodbye"'s performance in Eurovision.

 Done

In Lisbon

• Add a source for the location (especially Altice Arena)

 Done

I'm assuming "Altice Arena" and "Lisbon Arena" are the same thing? If so, that works.

It's the same thing. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Add a source for Eurovision's rules

 Done

@Cartoon network freak: I can't find in the source where it's mentioned that ten countries progressed from each semi-final. [3] and [4] would work for this. Also, I noticed another issue as I was going through this section: the summary of Weaver's review says that she "it would positively impact viewers watching the contest", but this is a bit unclear since it makes it sound like she's saying it'll have a positive emotional impact on viewers. I think it would be best to quote her directly: "predicted it would 'catch the viewers' eyes due to its differing style'". Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• It's not made clear by the article that the order of the semifinal performances was announced on 3 April. If I'm not mistaken, the fact that Romania is participating in the second semifinal would have been announced by the semifinal allocation draw on 29 January ([5]); please correct me if I'm wrong here. The easiest way to deal with this might be to remove the date altogether and to simply say that they were the second performance in the second semi-final, but if you can include the announcement date in a way that's clear and accurate, that's also fine.

In January, it was announced who was in which semi-final, while in April, the running order in each semi-final was made public. I've reworded some bits to make it clearer (I hope).

@Cartoon network freak: That works! I don't think the first source at the end of that sentence (dated 12 January 2018) should be there, though; I can't find any information in the sentence that the source covers. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to watch the video you linked because it's not available in my country, but that's not an issue; this section's description on the choreography is very clear, so it does a good job achieving its purpose. The only issue is that an inline citation should be placed right after "all over the place" since it's a quote.

 Done Thanks for the praise!

• Be sure to put ellipses in the part of the Wiwibloggs quote that's omitted ("who wear all white" after "bands mates freeze").

I do not quite find that place. Could you possibly fix that for me? Thank you!

Thanks for the help! Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Hadger (talk) (contribs) 09:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• From Weaver's review: "noted The Humans' show as a statement" sounds a bit awkward; perhaps replace that with "commented that The Humans' show 'is set to make a statement'".

 Done Much better wording

Points awarded to Romania

• The only issue here was that the empty boxes for the lower points in the "Televoting" section were a bit confusing, since they appeared to apply to the countries listed above them. I've fixed this.

Thank you!

Great job with the Eurovision section! As someone who lives in the US, I don't pay attention to Eurovision, so I expected myself to be somewhat confused, but I wasn't. This section was very well-written, giving readers a good idea of how Eurovision works while still staying focused on The Humans' performance. Great work!

I'll get to the rest of the sections soon, as well as the media.

Some more issues I found:

• In the "Critical reception" section, the phrase "Wolther's thought was also echoed by observers" is a bit redundant and borders on original research. I would remove that part of the sentence altogether.

 Done Sorry!

• In the "Promotion" section, the Eurofestivalnews source doesn't say that the tour was commenced in March 2018.

I have reworded the sentence. What I wanted to say is not that they began the tour then, but rather that they were on tour as of that date. Hope it is better now?

I'm not sure if this is a Google Translate issue, but according to the translation I'm reading, the Eurofestivalnews source doesn't say that they've started the tour, just that they were preparing for it. If my translation is incorrect, don't worry about it; otherwise, I think this could be fixed by simply saying that they "commenced a tour in Europe", without giving a date. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Also in the "Promotion" section, I think "A destination included" sounds a bit awkward; "One destination was" would sound better.

 Done Indeed.

@Hadger: I've responded to your comments. Also, sorry for some edits on the previous sections not being saved; they somehow got "lost" while editing. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries! I'm going take a look at the rest of the sections as well as the media now. Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Track listing

No issues here; everything is properly sourced.

Release history

No issues here; this section is properly sourced as well.

Images and other media

I made some small changes to the caption of the image in the "Live performance and reception" section: I removed "act of" before "depersonalization" (since that's not really an act as much as it's something that happens), and I changed "losing identity" to "the loss of identity" so that it sounds better. Other than that, no issues here.

Media	Complies with criterion 6a?	Complies with criterion 6b?
Album artwork	Y	Y
Audio sample	Y	Y
Band members at promotional event	Y	Y
Eurovision performance	Y	Y

Those are all the comments I have. This article is close to meeting all of the GA criteria; just a few more changes and it'll be ready. Good work! Hadger (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hadger: I think everything is done now apart from a comment in the lead section that I don't know how to deal with. Regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Yep, all the issues are resolved. Great work here!

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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: