Talk:I Hope You Find It/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Initiated by BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original review, by a first-time reviewer, unfortunately missed important facets of some basic GA criteria. In particular, the MOS compliance and copyright criteria were not met. There are some minor prose issues as well, but that wouldn't normally be sufficient to call for a reassessment. While I wish this wasn't necessary, since the author and nominator CyrockingSmiler stopped editing on Wikipedia shortly after the article was listed and won't be around to work on the article now, given the issues and substantial work involved, I don't think the article is close enough to a Good Article to avoid a reassessment.

Basically, the structure of the article is badly off kilter, the prose isn't quite up to standard, not all sources are reliable, there's at least one copyright issue, and specific details appear to be inferred and therefore questionable or clearly wrong. The lead/introduction should be a summary of the whole article, but instead deals with the Cyrus version of the song. The Cyrus version is given short shrift compared to the Cher version—perhaps inevitable given how little attention the original release was given—which makes the article feel unbalanced. To be more specific:

Prose: we have a number of categories here:

clear and concise: the Live performances and promotion section is not clear: did she really do all those promotional performances the following day?), including tense and details? Also, a tour shouldn't be referred to as "current", but be described by its year and perhaps months.
respects copyright laws: compare the second paragraph in the lead's "wishing her ex, Will (Liam Hemsworth's character), the best in a future relationship; while accepting it was nice while it lasted" with the source's "wishes the artist’s ex all the best in a future relationship, accepting that it was nice while it lasted". Probably a copyvio; certainly unacceptably close paraphrasing. And as bad: it introduces the unsupported claim that the song is there because it's Cyrus's character Ronnie wishing Will the best, which from my reading appears to be a highly dubious interpretation (aka WP:SYNTH). Given that it's an unreliable source (see "Verifiable" section), the whole should be deleted.
spelling and grammar: some errors, such as "witing" and the misuse of "prominently"

MoS compliance: this clearly does not comply with the lead sections guideline, in particular: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The article doesn't do that at all. Instead, the intro here talks in some detail about the original, Miley Cyrus version of the song: charting, lyrics, construction, and so on. The Cyrus version does not appear in the body, except for an extremely brief paragraph that barely touches on its critical reception, and that's from an unreliable source (see below). The Cher version is virtually ignored in the lead. Hence, the lead needs to be totally rewritten.

Verifiable with no original research: since reliable sources are key to this, as is accurately reflecting what they say, I regret to say I've found issues with both. One I've corrected in the first paragraph of Live performances and promotion: the statement that Cher "closed the eighth week of Dancing with the Stars with a performance of the song" was wrong in its claim that it ended the show, and the sort of specific detail that should be in a source rather than guessed at (there was no source; I had to provide one with my rewrite). That first paragraph had no sourcing at all, which makes the claims of performances of the first seven shows—especially the timing, given the prose—questionable. The Maximum Pop site, used for a number of key facts (including the close paraphrasing mentioned elsewhere), appears to me to be a fan site—it's a WordPress blog, and talks about 339 email subscribers and has a "Follow me on Twitter" link—and not appropriate as a reliable source for any Wikipedia article. As already noted, it's also misinterpreted (see comment about unsupported claim above). The "Cher News" source is clearly not a reliable source: it's self-proclaimed as "one of the world's most popular Cher fansites".

Broadness: while I'd like more detail on the Cyrus version of the song, I've been unable to find any: its only claim to notability was that it was on the soundtrack album (and according to one review, unfortunately on an unreliable site, seems to have been heard only briefly in the movie, and then during the closing credits?), and received enough downloads after the soundtrack was released to get that high on the "bubbling under" chart. It would have been appropriate to compare this charting directly to Cher's version, which didn't make the Hot 100 (was it bubbling under or not?). Still, as much Cyrus information as can reliably be found should appear in the body of the article.

Based on the above, I think it's clear that this article will need to be delisted unless quite a bit of work is done to it. I think allowing a week for work to begin is reasonable (much like a regular nomination being on hold for a week to allow noted issues to be worked on). —BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not interested in making any kind of contribution any more - I've stated before, the article seems biased and looks as a written comparison of both version, of course more inclined towards cirus. For example the sentence 'According to Jackie Willis of Entertainment Tonight, Cher showed Cyrus "the highest form of flattery" by covering her song, after going back on disparaging comments regarding Cyrus' controversial 2013 MTV Video Music Awards performance.[5]" is put in the intro part and seems as though it is 'legit', while the fact is that Cher had no idea who recorded the song first and has said so in an interview... The article should be written more profesionally and so that you can not see the inclanation of the editor towards any of the versions.—Uncleangelo (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

There have been no edits to the article and no disagreement here: the article does not meet Good Article standards. The reassessment is complete, and the decision is to delist is effective immediately. I have just now removed the problematic material listed above from the article. —BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: you should update its class. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Gabriel Yuji. I forgot that step. I'll be reverting to C-class, which is what it had before its original nomination; I don't believe it's at B-class yet, though there is a mechanism for formal review through at least one of the WikiProjects involved. Thanks for the reminder. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]