Talk:Skyfall (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(As it happens, I was literally one minute away from taking this review last time, sitting here playing the song on my laptop, when somebody beat me to it. Sorry that you all had to experience this delay, but I'm personally glad to have a second chance at it!) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Thanks everybody for their work on this one. This appears solid in its research and content so far, and should reach GA without too much trouble. I do think it could use some more work on copyediting--see below.

"Film company Eon Productions invited the singer to in early 2011" -- to what? Write the song, record it? It seems like some words are missing here.
"theme tune songs" -- this seems like a very awkward phrase-- is that what they're usually called?

I'd like to put this on hold for a bit so that more copyediting can be done. The text seems to have a lot of basic errors still, like "Adele revealed that they she and Epworth", "who played it the film producer Barbara Broccoli and James Bond portrayer Daniel Craig", "an uniting factor", "He describe it", or " The song intentionally references Monty Norman's "famous four line motif" after the first chorus. the man who wrote the theme tune for the first Bond film, Dr. No (1962)." (I've fixed all of these but the last.) I don't mind doing some minor copyediting as I go, but this feels like it still needs another pass by the original editors before it's ready for the final polish. Let me know when you think it's ready and I'll start again from the top. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did some cleanup (apparently some sections had both spelling problems and repeated info), and asked another major contributor to help. igordebraga ≠ 02:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party as always - been tied up with a few bits on and off wiki. I've made a start on the ce, which I hope to wrap up today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both! Just let me know when you want me to take another pass myself. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the quick responses. I'll take a look at this today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments

Okay, this looks pretty close to ready for GA. I've listed a few action points here, and a few checks remain, but this solid work and seems ripe for promotion. Thanks to everybody working on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few tweaks to prose as I went, including cutting a sentence that seemed a bit redundant. If you disagree with any of these, please don't hesitate to revert. I'll let you know if it's something that seems important for GA status.

These look fine to me, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"they worked to capture "the James Bond feeling" of previous theme songs" -- who is "they" here? Epworth and Adele?

Yes: tweaked to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did the rumors of Adele's involvement start? The article gives both September 2011 and September 2012 as the date these rumors began.

Tweaked to clarify (first ones started in September '11; second wave were a year later). - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" which according to Newman had similarities to Adele's theme being "a real moment of 'Bond' swagger"" -- I'm not sure what this means.

Tweaked. I hope this reads OK: both music and the film scene had Bond swagger, which is why the music was chosen for that particular moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The names of print publications in the works cited (like Empire) should be italicized.

Done (I think I've got them all, but let me know if I've missed any. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Epworth was visited by Newman for advice, and Redford, who was already doing the score's orchestration, was requested to arrange "Komodo Dragon" as according to Newman because he felt "[his] task was already so huge and daunting" -- this sentence confuses me, too. couldn't this just be written "Newman felt" instead of "according to Newman because he felt"? Or am I misunderstanding who the "he" is here?

Re-worked this. It's much clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Harvard Crimson review really needed here? It doesn't seem to have much to add, and Harvard or no, it's just a college newspaper.

I agree - it's no better than most blogs really. Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also won the Brit Award for British Single of the Year, which Adele celebrated through a video message, as during the 2013 BRIT Awards she was in Los Angeles preparing for the Academy Awards;[48] the Critics' Choice Award for Best Song;[49] and the Golden Globe for Best Original Song" - It's mildly ambiguous what list the semicolon is continuing here. I assume that the semicolon list is the three awards she won, rather than the three she was preparing for. But this could be clarified by reordering the sentence.

Re-worked for clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" It has sold 1,600,000 copies in the US according to Soundscan" -- this statistic should also be dated ("as of") per WP:REALTIME

Done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone figure out what template is causing the nonexistent category Category:Singles certified 2× platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America to display on the page? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorted - someone had edited the template incorrectly. Now correctly shows Category:Singles certified double platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Khazar2, I think I've covered all the above, but if I've missed anything, or introduced further errors, please let me know and I'll sort it out. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the swift responses! That should just about do it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Congrats to everyone on a job well-done! FWIW, by the way, I think it was useful having this image of Adele in the article [1] removed yesterday; if editors want to restore it in the future, they've got my vote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Khazar - much appreciated! I've added the image back in - I hadn't noticed its removal earlier. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]