Talk:Music of the Sun/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite (and do my obligatory occasional pop culture review). Review will be completed shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some spots of stilted writing that need a bit of attention
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some questions on sourcs and one spot where a quotation needs a citation
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General:
- Can we refer to Rihanna as "Rihanna" instead of "the singer" more? Generally, Wikipedia style is to use the name - not "the singer". Constructions like "After Rihanna signed a record deal with Def Jam Recordings, the singer began working with various producers..." sound stilted - use "After Rihanna signed a record deal with Def Jam Recordings, she began working with various producers..." instead. This needs attention throughout the article. Another example is "Rihanna explained how the pair helped the singer develop her song-writing abilities, saying..." which would be much better "Rihanna explained how the pair helped her develop her song-writing abilities, saying.."
  Done. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
- File:Whitney Houston Welcome Heroes 7 cropped.JPEG - not really sure that this is a relevant picture - yes, it's free, but a pic of someone else singing a song that the artist who sang the song the article is about - this is a bit of a stretch.
  There aren't any pictures of Whitney just standing there. In fact, there are not many pictures of her on here in general. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is that images of Whitney in an article on an album by Rihana are not exactly relevant. That's my point. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If a singer is mentioned in an article, then a picture of them is allowed to be included. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for File:BEYONCE CONCERT IN CENTRAL PARK 2011 Good Morning America's Summer Concert Series - Central Park, Manhattan NYC - 070111 cropped.jpg - its a pic of another artist performing a song mentioned in the article but not the subject of the article - marginal relativity to the article subject.
  This is a clear image of what Beyonce looks like, which is why I picked it. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See above - the relevance of an image of Beyonce in an article about a Rihana album is not very high. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As above. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
- ~~link for "record label"? "demo tape"?~~
- ~~need to expand "CEO" on first usage and give abbreviation in ()'s~~
  Done both. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
- ~~Need a direct citation on "There's only two ways out. Out the door after you sign this deal. Or through this window ..."~~
- ~~"Music of the Sun was inspired by the variety of caribbean music, including..." odd sounding .. suggest "Music of the Sun was inspired by caribbean music, including..."~~
- "...with production helmed by the former two." Two things wrong here - "helmed by" is just a phrasing most folks won't understand and the second is "by the former two" which is stilted. Suggest "by the first two."
  Done all three. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recording:
- "As an R&B song,[13] "If It's Lovin' that You Want" is a song about a girl telling a boy that he should make her his girl, because she has what the boy wants." I do not understand why the usage of "As an R&B song, ..." which implies that the subject matter of the song (the part of the sentence after "As an R&B song,") is a requirement for a song to be an R&B song. As far as I know, this is not the case. Suggest instead "A song in the R&B genre,[13] "If It's Lovin' that You Want" is about a girl telling a boy that he should make her his girl, because she has what the boy wants."
  ""A song in the R&B genre," is too long winded. Plus, song's aren't in a genre. Also, R&B self implies that it is a genre, so no need to say "genre". I have reworded. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
- What makes http://www.kidzworld.com/corporate/aboutus a reliable source?
  It is reliable. It is used in countless articles. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't address what makes it a reliable source - lots of articles use unreliable sources - what makes this (and the others) reliable. See WP:SOURCES, and show how this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is allowed to stay. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 00:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise http://www.artistdirect.com/?
  Same as above. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't address what makes it a reliable source - lots of articles use unreliable sources - what makes this (and the others) reliable. See WP:SOURCES, and show how this site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is allowed to stay. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 00:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.discogs.com/help/about-discogs.html a reliable source? Note that it calls itself "a user-built database containing information on artists, labels, and their recordings"
  Discogs is also reliable. Again, used in countless articles. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't address what makes it a reliable source - lots of articles use unreliable sources - what makes this (and the others) reliable. Especially in this case - user-generated sites are unlikely to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - its similar to using Wikipedia as a source. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Note that it's probably okay to source the info on the bonus tracks from the liner notes/album notes - although that's primary, for something like this information, primary is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have removed Discogs. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 00:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Not required, but should mention the languages for all the foreign chart sources, not just the German one.~~
- ~~Missing a publisher for the ARIA charts reference (current reference 58)~~
I've done some copyediting, if I destroyed anything, let me know, hopefuly I didn't.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - I'm not really happy with this explanation - I asked specific questions here about the reputation of the given sources for fact checking and accuracy - just because it's an interview doesn't mean we still don't need to judge the accuracy and fact checking of these sources. Nor am I happy about this edit summary "Removed Discogs, but the other two are allowed to stay. And FA reviewer has said they are acceptable for GA" which basically thumbs its nose at my questions - which I would still like answered. I would like the questions answered - I'm conducting the GA review - not someone else, and while I'm certainly going to take her opinion into consideration - I would appreciate something that addresses the actual questions I asked - the policy I linked to WP:SOURCES must be followed. Interviews conducted by non-reliable sites are still non-reliable - there is no "interview exception" in the policy. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only asked Nikki because she conducts the source and reference checks on FACs, and believe me, she knows which websites are and are not reliable. I don't know what I am supposed to do it about it. You are saying removed, yet an FA reviewer is saying that they are allowed to stay. You asked if they are reliable, I asked Nikki if they are reliable to use for GA, and she returned with 2 out of the 3 being reliable for inclusion.

I know all about Niki - I used to do what she does at FAC - and I adore her dearly - but I do not consider all interviews instantly reliable .. I want to see WHY these two interviews should be reliable. I too am an FAC reviewer - I know what sources pass muster at FAC and I'm also a pretty dang experienced GA reviewer - something over 180 or so GA reviews I've conducted. And I have Niki's page watched - she didn't say they were certainly reliable, she said in her opinion they were borderline. Show me why borderline reliable sources fulfill the policy I linked above. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what you want me to do. Until it is proved that they are grossly unreliable, they remain. For the Kidzworld source, Rihanna specifically spoke to them for the interview. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to show me WHY they are reliable. The standard isn't "grossly unreliable and it goes" but "only unreliable and it can stay"... To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Yes, this is GA, so you're not having to show "high quality" .. you merely need to show "reliable". Interviews are subject to editorial error/bias/misreporting/etc, so while I don't doubt that Rihana spoke to the site, how can we know that the site transmitted the interview correctly if they don't have any sort of reputation for fact checking? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidzworld

http://www.kidzworld.com/parent-teacher
http://www.kidzworld.com/corporate/aboutus
Mashable, an American news site founded by Pete Cashmore, who has been cited in Forbes and The Huffington Post and editor-in-chief Lance Ulanoff, who formerly edited PC Magazine have cited it here.

Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

That's just stating that kids can use kidzworld's blogging platform, doesn't speak to the reliability of the site or it's contents. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not referring to the kids, kids can use the site for chatting etc., but the site also publishes interviews like the Rihanna one (which isn't done by little children). The point I am making is that the people who I listed have cited Kidzworld, as a company. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can read the article you've listed - it doesn't say a thing about kidzworld's fact checking or anything like that. Right now, the interview is being used to cite quotations from Rihanna - which need a source that meets the RS policy. As of now, I don't see that kidzworld meets that policy. I've done some poking around of my own - I cannot find a single news source that uses anything from kidzworld as a source for any sort of news article. I checked on her own website - and I did some google news searches, and found nothing about this. I'm afraid that at this point, nothing you've brought up meets the RS policy for this site. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rihanna sat down and spoke with Kidzworld for the interview. I don't know what else to say. Apart from if this has to be removed, then virtually most of the Background section and the Recording section will be removed, providing next to no information, meaning that the article will probably not meet the guidelines for enough information, resulting in a Fail. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt that she sat down with them for an interview. However, we cannot know that they transmitted the results of the interview properly as they have no reputation for interviewing. I'm willing to overlook the usage for everything but direct quotes - but the GA criteria are quite clear that only RSs can be used for direct quotations. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

&::::::: There was only one quote to re-write. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artistdirect

Also apart of Relativity Media LLC, (Netflix)
The material they published copyrighted
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/misc/term/0,,,00.html

Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn}

Looks good on artists direct - but can we get some not-Kidworldz endorsements? Are they cited/used by any news organizations/sites? Say Nickelodeon? Disney? Also - if Rihana's site links to the exact interviews used, then that would show that she and/or her people regard the interview as reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that Im really happy about the reliability of kidzworld, but the GA criteria do not require that every source used be reliable - only things likely to be challenged and quotations. With the elimination of the direct quoting, this article meets GA criteria, but barely. Strongly suggest you do some digging in print sources to find more information - its quite likely there are print sources that could be used to replace kidzworld. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]