Talk:Teenage Whore/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I knew of this article as being somewhat close to GA already (though I've never touched it, that I know of) I will review this one. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Ok so I touched it once but I think I'm not contaminated. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like there are too many two or even one-liners and/or two sentence paragraphs. Probably just too much hitting of the enter button. I might help with that. I'm still thinking about how I want that resolved.
Someone's challenged the genre. I'd like you to at least try and cite the genre in the article.
I feel uncomfortable with simply leaving reference no. 1 as of now without a link. It was an episode of a TV show over 25 years ago. Am I supposed to simply supposed to rely on your memory of the show to depict accuracy for the article? How did you get access to it? Even if less reliable as a weblink, one should be added. The fact that it was a show in the first place makes it reliable, but I would like it with another link if at all possible. Do they have a recording of it somewhere?
Everything before the third sentence in "Release" is uncited.
Anything notable about its live performances? Most (but not all) song GAs I see have something about it.
Even though the article looks aesthetically worse in my eyes, you have technically addressed almost everything that is in WP:WIAGA.

So, you're close. Talk to me about what you can do about these. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor:, thanks for looking at this. I will try to look into expanding one-line sentences and try to find a citation for genre. As far as the ITV reference goes, there was a video of the segment on YouTube, but it was blocked by UMG on copyright grounds and no longer exists. I'm not sure what to do in regard to that—would a linked text source/summary of the episode be useful/appropriate? I don't know if there is any published material in regard to live performances, but I will try to look into this. There are numerous bootlegs of live recordings and whatnot, but the band never performed the song on live television to my knowledge (presumably given the lyrical content + the fact that it was at the beginning of their career). Let me know if there is anything else you'd like to me to look into. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never got back to you on some things. A text transcript would do great. The live performance doesn't have to be a high-publicity thing like that, but if any published material exists, that'd be good. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I don't understand why the personnel section has mixing, recording places and so on from other songs? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's forgivable, I can see why someone would think to put that there. Personnel sections generally tell all about who helped make the recording, and those are usually cited by liner notes. Liner notes in turn will often list the place where it was recorded, written, produced, mixed, etc. This isn't the norm for Wikipedia articles, you're right. Drown Soda, please remove those from that section and cite them somewhere else in the article if they're not there already. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant. Why would you cite the place where another song was recorded? It has nothing to do with this, its not the album article. Should only have stuff related to the song, no to other songs. It's a honest mistake of course. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree, as the reviewer. It is pertinent information. It's referring to the B-sides of the single, not just the main song in context. These others don't appear on any album at all. So it'd be helpful to know that they weren't all recorded in the same place. But you are right in that it doesn't belong in "Personnel". dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there were b-sides. My bad. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

DannyMusicEditor, Drown Soda, where does this review stand? I see that Drown Soda made two edits to the article the evening of March 5, and DannyMusicEditor made one there the following day. It's been over three weeks since without any activity. What else needs to be done? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's a dedicated Hole fan. At the time he nominated, he was also working on Courtney Love being an FA (finally). He nominated Hole for GAN too and I'm sure he'd get back to this with a little prod. Thanks BlueMoonset. Was going to do this myself soon. I have changed the status to on hold so maybe he will have some more attention here. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor:, @BlueMoonset:, I am frankly somewhat confused as to what the status is myself--the above comments were addressed awhile back from what I understood, so I'm not really sure what more needs to be done or where this is standing right now(?) I don't see any further review/points of contention/comments to go off of, but perhaps I'm missing something? --Drown Soda (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "release" issues I highlighted above are still there. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Honestly, I thought there might be more. I don't know if this should pass. I'm on the fence, really. I saw this review a while ago and remembered it for its outcome, which at the time was unique to my eyes. That was a successful Taylor Swift song which received decent radio airplay, and it still failed. This, on the other hand, is an indie-released punk song. To me, it looks like this is only a little better than that song's situation. I'm going to ask for a second opinion because I'm not sure if the article meets GA criterion 3a. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: take a look at the previous GA review, which failed the reviewer added some potential sources of information, have those been used to expand the article? As far as I'm concerned the lead seems a bit thin for three paragraphs perhaps two would do the trick. On the other hand, why does the section in "popular culture" has two paragraphs? Perhaps a line regarding the charts positions could be added. I believe its halfway a couple more information could be useful. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What aspects do you feel are missing? AIRcorn (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: AIRcorn (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria, articles under 15,000 prose characters (and this is about a third of that) should have leads of one or two paragraphs; three is definitely too many. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Suggest putting the third paragraph with the first. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, based on a talk I had with AIRcorn, I'm going to pass this. I guess if this is all there is, that's it, then. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]