Jump to content

Talk:Running Back (Jessica Mauboy song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the review

[edit]

I will be going through each of the criteria in order. I reserve the right to return to earlier comments/sections and revise/add to them until the review is finished. Unless otherwise indicated, maintain existing wikilinks and formatting. The review process should take about a week to ten days. If needed, I will allow an additional week for any requested changes to be made before making my decision.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A good article is—

    Criterion 1

    [edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    1. Being an Australian-based article it might need a {{Use Australian English|date=August 2011}} template.
    Infobox
    1. Although content is not required for GA, leave | Alt = in the template: another editor may add suitable text.
    2. Released, use {{Start date|2008|9|19|df=y}} template.
    3. Recorded, de-link Sydney and New South Wales. They're common terms.
    4. Label, drop Music leaving Sony.
    5. Last name for Producer. – he's credited just as 'Audius' when they mention him as the producer in the album credits.--Thanks for clarifying.
    6. Add in |Chronology = [[Jessica Mauboy]] after Producer line. Delete content at Misc, Artist, and Type. Note: don't use Jessica Mauboy singles, as the infobox colour tells us we're looking at a singles chronology.
     Done Oz talk 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Lead[reply]
    1. recording artist Jessica Mauboy, featuring American rapper Flo Rida > recording artist Jessica Mauboy, which features American rapper Flo Rida
    2. Avoid repetition. to have Flo Rida featured on her debut single, This contains same info as 1st sentence. Try something like to work with Rida,
    3. number three > number three
    4. ¶2, 2nd sentence, start with In 2009, and so remove too many 2009s in that and the next sentence.
    5. The significance of her performing on Australian Idol is not established for casual readers. – do I remove this from the lead or explain a bit more why she performed it on Idol?
     Done Oz talk 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. A brief description in the Lead of her return to Idol helps establish her background: from a talent contestant to a successful solo artist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Background and composition
    1. Not much background here. A little more about Mauboy's previous work would help.
    2. The songwriters should be verified by a performance-rights organisation e.g. APRA or ASCAP. – Says who? Its already been verified by the album's liner notes.
      1. I can't check the notes: Do they give Snob Scrilla as Sean Ray or as Sean Ray Mullins? Do they give Audius as Audius Mtawarira or just first name?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Snob is mentioned as Sean Ray Mullins, and Audius' last name is used when he's mentioned as a songwriter and its his first name only when he's mentioned as the producer.Oz talk 10:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)--That's okay then.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Much of this section relies on the Perth Music blog (its reliability will be discussed later). The intro to the quote can be shortened.
    2. The quote itself goes on a fair bit: it takes up nearly half of this whole section. Can it be summarised/shortened?
    3. Who's the 'we' she refers to in the quote?
    4. You've changed the format of "CAN NOT", this de-emphasises a point Mauboy is stressing, try can not.
    5. and did there thing > and did there [sic] thing
     Done Oz talk 23:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. New info is good and provides some of her background.
    2. From Boy's review is the song also classifiable as contemporary hip-hop? – He's saying that because of Flo Rida's rap verse. But he doesn't rap the entire time so I don't think its contemporary hip-hop. For example: Snoop Dogg raps on "California Gurls" but that doesn't mean the song is contemporary hip-hop. Oz talk 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)--Okay.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Release and reception[reply]
    1. on 11 October 2008 > on 11 October We know the year.
    2. A week by week analysis of its charting trajectory is not necessary. Its debut, peak and number of weeks in top 100 is sufficient. Precise dates are not needed either.
    3. ARIA Charts doesn't need to be linked a second time (hidden behind ARIA Urban Singles Chart).
    4. ¶3 can have 2009 appearances reduced per Lead changes.
    5. 2009 Vodafone MTV Australia Awards > MTV Australia Awards.
     Done Oz talk 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Query: is the single version the same as the album version?
    2. Mention remix also features Israel Cruz.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Oz talk 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Music video and live performances[reply]
    1. during the week of 1–7 September 2008 > during the first week of September 2008
    2. Most of ¶1 has no citation. – Can I use her official Vevo channel as a source? Oz talk 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)--An official video seems allowable (duly referenced). Check that the supplied prose is purely descriptive not interpretive (more on this in criterion 2, if its not fixed by then).[reply]
     Done Oz talk 10:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ¶2 1st sent: significance of Australian Idol appearance and relevance of what she is wearing should be expanded.
    2. on 13 October 2008 > in October We know the year, exact date not significant.
    3. , held on 31 December 2008 Delete. If held on an alternative date e.g. 15 March this might be notable.
    4. Delete naming-rights/sponsors e.g. Vodafone & Kia.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Oz talk 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Track listing[reply]
    1. Songwriters per track. Wikilink and full name first time mentioned, last/common name not linked subsequently. – Why do songwriters have to be mentioned here? I've never seen a good article about a song with songwriters in the track listing. Plus "Magical" was not part of the album so I don't know its songwriters. Oz talk 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I've just had a quick look at about ten or so GAs for songs and it looks like you're right and I'm wrong, sorry about that. If you want to use it, "Magical" was written by Mauboy and Mtawarira.(see ASCAP: here). Does the album liner notes give Thelma Howell, Mauboy and Manisur Mugisha for "Breathe"? (see here).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personnel
    1. songwriter should be in Track listing section, doesn't have to be here too.
     Done Oz talk 08:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Charts and certifications & Release history[reply]
    1. Okay.
    I've done my first run-through of Criterion 1, but may go back later.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has improved in this criterion. However some of the recent edits have resulted in problems:
    1. A loss of continuity in Background section, ¶2 Mauboy said it was a dream The 'it' is not clearly identified. Perhaps Mauboy said working with Flo Rida was a dream?  Done Oz talk 07:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. See, Release section, ¶2 It became Mauboy's highest charting single as a solo artist, Since its her debut solo single the expression 'highest charting single' sounds awkward.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC) – I have removed this. I added it because you told me to mention "Burn". Oz talk 07:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Burn" should be mentioned. The tie-in sentence needs re-wording. Something like Her next single, "Burn" was released in November and charted even higher when it peaked at number one. Wikilink "Burn" if its first time in main text.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now acceptable for this criterion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 2

    [edit]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
    • Preliminary comments: A quick glance indicates that the refs are generally well formatted and most look to be reliable sources. Some are archived – a good idea, especially if going for FA later. I will check all on-line refs to see whether they support claims made. Although not compulsory, I prefer {{Reflist|25em}} (or similar) to format the ref section. The numbering below relates to the ref no. at the start of this process: the order may be changed by subsequent editing of the article.
    1. → 3. :Okay.
    3. Can't check.
    4. Check author: Augie March (actually their keyboardist, Kiernan Box) is a previous interviewee. Work is Perth Music. Aside from that, how is this blog a reliable source? If not reliable then the content, including direct quote(s), is to be removed or verified by a more reliable source. – I've removed this because its a blog site. It had good information though. Oz talk 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    5. → 10. :Okay.
    7. I get part of a page loaded, then hi-jacked to a bandit.fm notice and a 'new' page which seems to be a generic Sony front page with no Mauboy. This happens both with the original and archived pages. I've had similar problems before with Sony. I've tried the wayback machine: here. This verifies content. You may have to adjust the refs urls.
      1. I've tried again and ended here which includes a biography suspiciously similar to refs [24] and [27].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Before 12. "The song received positive reviews from critics" As this section only details two critics, how is this verified?
    2. Add (News Corporation) after News Limited.
    3. Add (GrooveOn Media) to publisher.
    4. → 21. :Okay.
    6. |title=IMA 2009 | Music NT|publisher=Musicnt.com.au > |title=IMA 2009: The 6th annual Indigenous Music Awards 2009 |publisher=musicnt.com.au (Music NT)
    7. Okay.
    8. This appears to be a publicity blurb from Sony via Mauboy's website? Possibly written in late 2009. Some of the same material is at ref 27. Verifies that its filmed in Melbournen but the original source should be acknowledged in a note. Access date also needed.
    9. Okay.
    10. Publisher is Fairfax Media (avoid re-direct).
    11. As indicated above this appears to be a Sony publicity/Mauboy's management blurb. However there is no acknowledgement on this site of its origins. The "which broadcast in 162 countries" requires an independent source not Sony nor Mauboy's official website.
    12. Okay.
    13. and 30. Seems same place? I think [29]'s url is wrong. Try here.
    14. → 31. :Okay.
     Done Oz talk 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) First check of refs done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Music video...[reply]
    1. Current discussion includes some interpretation and is not purely descriptive. It would be good if you could find a review of the music video itself. Otherwise consider the following suggestions: of her apartment > of a bedroom, in his own apartment > in a different bedroom, looking at a photo of her and Rida > looking at a photo (and follow up changes of similar).
     Done Oz talk 08:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Remaining concerns include:[reply]
    1. The Lead claims "The urban pop ballad received positive reviews from critics." There is insufficient evidence in the text to support this. – The Mercury and Groove On gave it positive reviews. Oz talk 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. However the statement in the Lead is supposed to be a general overview of critical reception, if only two samples are provided in the relevant part of the main text then the statement is hardly representative. You may be able to find an independent source which says something like "Almost all professional reviews were positive" or give two or three more critical reviews as evidence to support the Lead's claim.
    1. Use of Sony Music/Mauboy's official website for some claims via refs 24/27 above (although may be renumbered by now) is still problematical.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC) – I've removed these sources. Can I use the australian-charts.com source for the song's CD release? Oz talk 07:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Yeah, you can use aus charts ref for "Running Back" to support Release date(s). It also gives song's writers, producer, track length(s) and label. You can't use any of the user-generated reviews/ratings at bottom of page though.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now acceptable in this criterion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 3

    [edit]
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    1. Actual composition of the main track is not particularly informative. We know who wrote it but not much else. How did Mauboy get to work with the other two? Did she work with them again? Aside from needing a rap section little is given on its development. What about the other tracks on the EP version? There's no description of their composition. This should be expanded by use of reliable sources. – Since the song only received media coverage in one country, we're not going to get a lot of information the other good articles have. Oz talk 08:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Whilst there's not a lot out there some more would help. I suggest you start with the Australian Idol/Young Divas connection for Mtawarira's earlier work and how this ties in with Mauboy. Mullins describes his work for Mauboy here. Then some indication of whether she worked with either again.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)  Done Oz talk 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Release & reception: how does its performance compare with subsequent singles? Other than the infobox, "Burn" is not even mentioned. A quick description/comparison for a wider context of the single in her solo career would help. Likewise a brief correlation with the success of her album, Been Waiting (including when it was released) is suggested.  Done Oz talk 08:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Personnel: currently only vocalists and production staff. Who were the musicians? Who did the Art work? – That was all the liner notes mentioned for "Running Back". Oz talk 08:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Who is Israel Cruz? His only mention is on a track version. Does he sing or remix or both? This information should be included in composition.
    First run-through done.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Further work to be done on this criterion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now acceptable in this criterion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 4

    [edit]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    1. No major issues here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 5

    [edit]
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    1. The article has generally been stable. Further changes per this review are expected.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 6

    [edit]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    1. An image and an audio sample, each has appropriate valid fair use rationales.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It passed, well done! I encourage you to provide a GAN review for an article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Running_Back_(Jessica_Mauboy_song)/GA1&oldid=1136235500"