Talk:Lifeline (Papa Roach song)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Article did not pass upon follow-up review.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but this could have easily been failed after the initial review. It probably ranks as a Start-Class article, as it is still in a developmental stage; notability is there, but little else. Nevertheless, I put it on hold in case someone had a trick up their sleeve; I felt it would be nonconstructive to not give some of the main contributors to the article, who are fairly new to Wikipedia, a week-long opportunity to experience the review process. Anyway... follow some of the notes below, and try to work toward getting it re-nominated. Some new comments can be found underneath some of the comments from the review from one week ago. Happy editing. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Review of version as of 23:08, 7 May 2009 per WP:WIAGA
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose/grammar/spelling:
- One particularly bad run-on sentence in the "Music video" section. Try tightening this up a bit.
- Some use of first-person in violation of WP:TONE.
Not done
- B. MoS compliance:
- Lead establishes some significance by stating it is the band's first song to top the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, but this and other facts stated in the lead are not elaborated on in the article. It would be best to remove the in-line ref following the mention about the title and lyric change and going into further detail on this elsewhere in the article, using the source, per WP:LEADCITE. No problem with the layout; infobox and succession box in good shape.
- Not done
- Lead establishes some significance by stating it is the band's first song to top the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, but this and other facts stated in the lead are not elaborated on in the article. It would be best to remove the in-line ref following the mention about the title and lyric change and going into further detail on this elsewhere in the article, using the source, per WP:LEADCITE. No problem with the layout; infobox and succession box in good shape.
- A. Prose/grammar/spelling:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Link to only source used in article's largest section is dead. If it was a direct link to the music video itself, it could possibly be a copyright violation to include such a link.
- Not done Only source added was a link to video on YouTube. This is unnecessary; a description of what happens in a music video does not require citations as the accuracy of the description can be verified by watching the video itself. If the YouTube link does not violate copyright, it belongs under "External links".
- Link to only source used in article's largest section is dead. If it was a direct link to the music video itself, it could possibly be a copyright violation to include such a link.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Reference #1 links to site that uses secondary sources itself. Try using those as sources instead. Chart listings are accompanied by reliable sources, but these refs would be better off if formatted with Template:Cite web.
- Not done
- Reference #1 links to site that uses secondary sources itself. Try using those as sources instead. Chart listings are accompanied by reliable sources, but these refs would be better off if formatted with Template:Cite web.
- C. No original research:
- Some speculative statements in the description of the song's music video.
- The article states that it is presumed that two people in the video are the wife and child of the man in the video. This is when a citation in a video description is needed (or in a case like this, utilizing WP:UCS and reaching a common conclusion on the discussion page can suffice). "Real world" info about a music video, especially info that is more open to dispute, needs sources as well.
- Some speculative statements in the description of the song's music video.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Article only states the single's track listing, chart listing, and a synopsis of the music video, and lacks any notable real world info about the song.
- Not done Nothing was added.
- Article only states the single's track listing, chart listing, and a synopsis of the music video, and lacks any notable real world info about the song.
- B. Focused:
- The only topic that is really addressed in the article in detail is the music video. The video's section is basically a synopsis of the video itself. I have not seen the video, nor heard about it, so I am unaware of any praise, criticism, controversy, etc. that would warrant inclusion into the article.
- Not done See above.
- The only topic that is really addressed in the article in detail is the music video. The video's section is basically a synopsis of the video itself. I have not seen the video, nor heard about it, so I am unaware of any praise, criticism, controversy, etc. that would warrant inclusion into the article.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Pretty solid. Nothing along the lines of someone's personal opinion of the song's quality, influence, etc. that plagues several music-related articles.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc: (May 7) / (May 14)
- Since the initial review, I've noticed some minor warring over what genre the band falls under. As mentioned on the article's talk page, it would be best to find a reliable source(s) to help settle this.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Good detailed non-free use media rationale for the cover art/infobox image. A suggestion: with so much emphasis on the music video (as the article stands as of this review), improve the video's section and include a screenshot of said video to better illustrate the improved description.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed.
- A lot needs to be addressed. Not a "quick-fail"; nominator created article and is responsible for majority of edits, and the single itself is relatively new, therefore it has an unforeseen potential for additional information. Article, as of now, is the result of four months of editing, so I do not foresee this as only needing one week to meet GA criteria. But, hopefully, I can be proven wrong.
- No improvements were made during the on-hold period.
- A lot needs to be addressed. Not a "quick-fail"; nominator created article and is responsible for majority of edits, and the single itself is relatively new, therefore it has an unforeseen potential for additional information. Article, as of now, is the result of four months of editing, so I do not foresee this as only needing one week to meet GA criteria. But, hopefully, I can be proven wrong.
- Pass or Fail:
Suggestions
[edit]In addition to what is mentioned above, let me offer a few more suggestions:
- Use more reliable sources. As of now, the article uses only two. Use these sources to: Not done
- Include enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.
- Elaborate on the details presented in the infobox.
- Describe the song based on its lyrical content and/or musical structure.
- Explain what impact and influence the song has had on listeners, culture, the alternative music genre, etc.
- Explain what impact and influence the music video had, as well, instead of simply giving a scene-by-scene summary of what is shown. Write about the filming process, director's intentions, representation of the song itself, etc.
- Write about the techniques used in writing, recording, and performing the song.
- Elaborate on the title change fact that is presented in the lead. Why did the lead singer change the lyrics? Did something dramatic happen during the writing process? Some good info could be in the answers. Not done
- Elaborate on the single's availability as a downloadable song for the Rock Band and Tap Tap Revenge 2 games. Why is this significant? Did the games' creators pick the song for a reason? Were they trying to improve sales by appealing to Papa Roach fans? Is the song notable for being different in style to most songs heard in the games? Or was it picked because it was similar and appealed to those with a taste for other songs in the games? Not done
- What has been the response to the song? Write about any accolades, criticism, controversy, etc. Not done
- Refer to Wiki's recommended music resources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD.
- Refer to Good Articles for singles by other rock/alternative bands - such as * "Angel of Death", "Bam Thwok", "Layla", "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and "Today" - and use them as a guide in editing and improving this article.
Good luck! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)