Talk:Jurassic Park (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will review this article very soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a film about a fictional Costa Rican island where geneticist have succeeded in closing dinosaurs." the geographic location is irrelevant, how about "a film about park on a fictional island where geneticists..."
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following seems to be original research/synthesis: "The parody features only parts of the song: the verses, choruses, the instrumental, and the ending.[8] The middle section—the so called "After the Loves of My Life" section[5]—is omitted.[8]" Not sure if a CD itself can be used as a source, there needs to be commentary that explains this, at least a booklet or some such.
This is kind of a weird section to cite, but I think there is a need to note this. The original song had a very, very distinct middle section, but Yankovic's parody simply does not feature it at all; it is completely missing. Since this song is a direct parody (in that it is a direct musical recreation) of "MacArthur Park", I think it is fair to use the song itself to prove that Yankovic simply omitted the section. It's kind of weird since I'm basically try to prove/back-up the absence of something, which is generally the opposite of most citations.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree the info is important, but it's the way it is cited that might be problematic. I'll ask for opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following section seems to have the same problem: "While "MacArthur Park" contained an actual orchestra complete with a strings section,[5] "Jurassic Park", on the other hand, features synth strings courtesy of keyboardist Brad Buxer, who programmed the section himself.[6"
I'm not sure this seems to be a problem. The recording notes for "MacArthur Park" show that there was an actual orchestra, whereas both Yankovic's website and the liner notes for Alpalooza state that Buxer synthesized the orchestra.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you write it as two different sentences without "while" and "on the other hand"? Then it will not look like an "original" conclusion, more a statement of facts, but the same point comes across. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence makes it seem that he said so during production, I think it should be specified that it was in a much later Q & A: "When it came time for a video for "Jurassic Park", Yankovic opted to use stop-motion and claymation; he joked that this was because "it's just too hard to find real live dinosaurs these days."[11]"
Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart form these issues, which might be slightly hard to solve if no sources can be found, I think it's good. I may have to ask for a second opinion on using a song itself as source, if nothing can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone knows if a song itself can be used as source for a statement("The parody features only parts of the song: the verses, choruses, the instrumental, and the ending.[8] The middle section—the so called "After the Loves of My Life" section[5]—is omitted.[8]"), please chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if I cite the Weird Al Anthology, which features sheet music/tabs/lyrics for "Jurassic Park"? That wouldn't be referencing the song itself, but would still be a reliable source?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went and did that. Does it look better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is better as a source, but there is still a bit of a "conclusion" drawn which is not actually stated by a source. I'd still have to get a second opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion@FunkMonk: - WP:primary says "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself". In my view, the first sentence in question does indeed cross the line. It definitely sounds like an interpretation, necessitating the reader to understand concepts like "verses, choruses, the instrumental" in order to verify the source. However, I don't have an issue with the sentence that begins with "The middle section featured..." This sounds like a straight forward statement to me. But the first sentence should be deleted if a secondary source can't be found.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. Do you think you would be able to find a source for the first sentence, Gen. Quon? FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a billion years to respond. I'm fine with that. I removed the first one.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. So the article looks alright now, passed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]