Talk:Love Sux

Love Sux was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 1, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Alternative music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bois Lie is a single

The song has been promoted as a single and has had a whole merch collection released to promote the song. The song was also released as a single on Spotify along with the acoustic. 90.210.220.30 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@90.210.220.30: There is no source to prove Bois Lie is a single, based on factors on the very helpful Singles criteria page that would prove this song is officially a single. Merch definitely doesn't mean the song is a single. The acoustic version was released as a digital single only, and we generally consider such releases as promotional singles, along with all other remixes released separately digitally (perhaps this is just treated as fan bonuses). Some editors wrote in edit summaries the song was to be sent to the radio; until there is no reliable source to prove this, the song shouldn't be considered a single. For now, I would suggest to consider this song only as a promotional single because of the digitally released acoustic version.
Danionek (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Danionek A few months back in February, Avril stated that the song will be a single in this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevebaltin/2022/02/20/sunday-conversation-avril-lavigne-on-love-sux-her-relationship-with-her-fans-and-being-grateful/?sh=3b9a67fe314b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:2817:9800:E99B:205A:8B03:1C32 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also recently stated the same thing here in this video: https://twitter.com/VidadefanAvril2/status/1561468094962343936?t=XP6e_sKmajy1KEA_yUo5AQ&s=19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:2817:9800:E99B:205A:8B03:1C32 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:C7E:2817:9800:E99B:205A:8B03:1C32: The only mention of Boys Lie in a Forbes article is Avril's answer to the question of which songs from the album she was most excited to bring to the stage. I feel like her answer is weirdly written, but I'm not denying that maybe she actually wanted to reveal she planned to release it as a single. As for this tweet, it's not "recently" — It's a 3rd party user's retweet of a video originally uploaded by Warner Music Brasil on March 2, 2022. I had no idea about this video, but I also have absolutely no idea what she meant then, since nothing happened with this song until now, after 5 months. I still hold the opinion the song should be considered a promotional single because only the acoustic version was released digitally, as we mainly do on Wikipedia with additional versions of songs. We can possibly wait to see if anything else happens with this song, for example if it'll be sent to the radio, which will confirm if it's a regular single.
Danionek (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Sux/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Avril Lavigne - Love Sux.png - Fair-use image, with a detailed and valid FUR. Meets all FU criteria
File:Avril Lavigne performing at Caesars Windsor, 2022-05-12 01.jpg - Image has a valid CC-BY-SA license, and metadata supports that it was the author's own creation.

Prose review and comprehensiveness

Lede

"I'm a Mess" and the deluxe edition - This isn't mentioned in the body of the article. Per MOS:INTRO, we should use summary style.

Composition and themes

The critics have offered diverse genres. What have they offered to support their classifications?
There is a great reliance on direct quotations in this section - from Lavigne, from critics, etc. Some of this should be rewritten in Wikipedia's voice, avoiding potential QUOTEFARM territory.

Promotion

These subsections are all short, and the sub-subheaders could feasibly be removed without detriment to the article.
How was reception of the tour? I don't mean quotes, but rather general public and critical engagement.
I'd recommend making this into a "Release and promotion" section, with information like the release date (you have that she announced it up top, and you have it in the infobox, but the fact that it released on schedule isn't in the body), as well as the different editions of the album (the vinyl and deluxe editions, specifically).

Source review

Earwig gives an 87% chance of a violation, which can be attributed to the extensive use of quotations. Reworking the text would help reduce that number.
Some refs are incomplete: see, for example, Refs 4 and 62
Please review references for title case formatting (compare, for example, Refs 29 and 30)
Publications haven't been linked on first mention, or universally (see, for example, Refs 6 and 30)
Metacritic reference doesn't support that this is her highest rated album (nothing is compared)
Gigwise is the work, and should be in italics
Have spotchecked Ref 32, 36, and the liner notes. All look good.

Conclusion

On hold This needs a bit of work, especially given that the reliance on quotations leaves the prose choppy. Also, please note that I edited the article while reviewing. Please review to confirm no meanings have been changed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Sharpest Lives. I see that you've been active since this review, but made no indication that this review has been read or that the comments are being worked on. I'm going to hold it for another four days, and if there are still no responses, I will have to close this nomination as unsuccessful. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can close it. Apologies for the wait, I've just been super busy. Hopefully somebody looks over your comments and gets the article to pass, but for now it won't be me. Thanks {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 20:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, The Sharpest Lives. If you nominate it again down the line, feel free to give me a shout. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.