Talk:LOL Smiley Face/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few issues detailed below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A couple of queries below
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers main aspects, doesn't get off track.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and balanced.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems fine. Recent edits appear to be improving article to this standard.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Appropriate image and audio use, each has the appropriate licensing and fair use rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose/MoS issues

The lead is a little bit too short. At the moment it doesn't quite summarise the article, per WP:LEAD. Although it pretty much touches on all aspects, it would be nice to see a little more of the critical reception in the lead, as that's quite a developed section.

The reason I didn't expand on the critical reception in the lead was because they only thing critics universally agreed on was that the song was catchy.

I gather that the song is known either as "LOL Smiley Face" or "LOL:-)". Sometimes during the article you refer to it just as "LOL". Unless this is another official variation, this should consistently be "LOL:-)". If it is a variation, that should be stated in the opening sentence.

Done

In the composition section, it might be worth saying that "Neighbors Know My Name" is from the same album, or roughly contemporary, to clarify the relevance of it being mentioned.
A couple of comments are a bit weasely; ie. not attributed. For example, ""LOL :-)"'s beat has been described as ..." and ""LOL"'s chorus has been said to be in a similar pattern..." You have provided references, which is the main thing, but try to say who said what, so that the reader understands the relevance/importance without having to check out the citation immediately.

Done

Is DJBooth a person as well as a website? I was a bit confused... if it's only a website, it sounds a bit strange so would be better as A reviewer for DJBooth. Don't worry if it's a person though, you don't need to put "DJBooth of DJBooth.com..."!

Done

"On the week labeled September 19, 2009" - I haven't heard that phrase before, is that a common way of talking about the charts? The only other articles on Wikipedia using that language seem to be ones contributed to by you. Please completely ignore me if I'm just being ignorant about the music biz, but I would have expected something like "the week beginning" or "the week ending", or even "the week of".

I've seen the phrase used but I'll change it to the week ending

Done

The last three prose sections are very short. Could these be merged at all?

I'll merge the last two but Chart performance and the video and performances are unrelated.

Done

I gather from the infobox that the single was download only. That should be mentioned in the prose. You also don't seem to have mentioned the release date or label in the text. These details could go together.

Well, typical music articles don't re-list the label or release date or format in the prose, and the format is included in the release history.

Really? I would have thought that would be basic information (release date & label; not necessarily format) that should be included. Is this written down anywhere? I've looked at the MoS and WP:SONG, but admittedly the MoS is a bit of a rabbit warren. Now, I would be (grudgingly!) happy with it just mentioned in the lead, I think I overlooked that you have mentioned the date in the lead, so I apologise for that, but would you object to adding the label there too?--Beloved Freak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, well I've never seen the label in a high-quality single article, that's usually left for albums or extended plays. Candyo32 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Credits" and "personnel" kind of mean the same thing, so I'd just pick one for the section header.

Well most FA music articles I based this one on use the heading "Credits and personnel", and it hasn't seemed to be a problem in my other eighteen good articles I used the section heading for.

Ok, I don't mean this to be a bone of contention, and it won't make the article fail GA. I know I can be a bit picky at GAN, maybe more than you're used to, but I like to see it as an opportunity to improve the article generally, as well as just granting it the green cross. After all, that's what we're here for as I'm sure you agree with all the fantastic work you've already done on music articles. I can't comment on the other reviews, but "credits and personnel" is tautology. They mean the same thing. Who is being credited, if not the personnel? It would be almost like having a section in a film article called "Plot and synopsis". I can understand you maybe thinking "if it aint broke, don't fix it", but is there a good reason for keeping it like that apart from the fact that the other articles have been like that?--Beloved Freak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy/references/citations

The chart position in the lead and in the "chart performance" section don't match

Done

~~The two Billboard refs currently at ref nos.~~

??

Sorry, not sure what happened there! Think I was having trouble getting the links to work, but they're alright now.--Beloved Freak 17:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reliability goes, could you please comment on why the following are reliable:
- Acharts

Forgive me for interrupting but i will answer this, WP:CHARTSCHART states "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links," with that said it also states "it is allowed". Generally aCharts should NOT be used, BUT in rare cases artists may have a hit single but not be notable enough themselves to be included in proper licensing archives. So aCharts will suffice. I do not know the status of this artist but check to see if proper archives are available. Ive reviewed Candyo's GA articles many times and im sure it was just overlooked. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have used Billboard directly, but the song is not covered on Billboard.

- BallerStatus

Given it is an interview, I wanted to flesh out the background section.

Ok, happy with that as it's an interview.

- Tiny Mix Tapes

Aggregate music reviewer Metacritic used, so I assume it is reliable.

Ok.

- DJBooth

It looks pretty reliable, and I used it to expand critical reception due to lack of reviews, and it looks like the best bet to use.

But, how is it reliable? Who's Richard? Is he an expert? Is there editorial oversight? I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with these sources, which is why I'm asking you about them. This is the only one left that I'm concerned about.--Beloved Freak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a LLC so I'm assuming its credible. Candyo32 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By LLC do you mean limited liability company? If so, I'm not sure how that affects reliability. The kind of thing I'd be looking for is do they have a reputation for reliability, fact checking, editorial oversight? Are any of the people involved known to be experts?--Beloved Freak 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at WP:RSN.--Beloved Freak 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two editors have their doubts, and no one has yet said it looks reliable. I think you're oing to have to lose this source, unless any new information proving its reliability comes up.--Beloved Freak 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a source for the release date?

Sourced in the release history. Candy o32 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place the nomination on hold to allow contributors to address the issues. Please let me know if you have questions or disagree with any of the above.--Beloved Freak 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

The audip file should be reduce per WP:SAMPLE and the cover must be at most 300px, IANAL, but it is not in the domain public, per {{PD-textlogo}}? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tbhotch, that's one thing I didn't know and one I forgot. Yes, the audio length should be no more than about 25 seconds. Is that what you meant by reduced or are you referring to the quality? (which I believe can be reduced by some kind of technical wizardry).--Beloved Freak 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refered to the lenght, not to the quality, (I've not listened to yet). Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the logo being public domain, I don't know. That's something I will look into.--Beloved Freak 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for advice here. Thanks for bringing these things up though.--Beloved Freak 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both

Done

Ok, thanks. As far as the article passing, there is just the outstanding issue of the source above. On a personal level, I would appreciate it if you responded to the comment/query above re: the heading, and also the question I left on your talkpage about using words vs. digits for numbers. It's not a problem, but it's helpful to me for future music reviews, or articles I'm writing myself to understand where you're coming from. Also, one last thing: am I completely crazy, or is there a reason I can't find the references that are currently nos. 12 & 14; the billboard links? I wanted to unlink the publisher details per WP:OVERLINK, and make them consistent with the other billboard citation, but I can't find the citation to edit!--Beloved Freak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]