Jump to content

Talk:There's a Honey/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: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 12:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox

[edit]
  • Released - Only the first release date
  • Recorded - source? and why is it not in the body of the article as well?
  • Genre - not sourced, should be in the composition section
  • Songwriter(s) - Ciara Doran & Heather Baron-Gracie, cut the ampersand
  • Add the music video as an external link here

 Done

Lead

[edit]
  • indie pop - aren't they indie rock?
  • It's debatable, tbh. I personally feel they're more indie/alt, but a lot of sources describe 'em as indie pop. I went with a source that called them "indie pop," but I'll see if I can also track down a ref for "indie rock."--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking because their artist page has them as indie rock. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song was written - It was written
  • and it was produced by - , "while its production was handled by the 1975 band members, Matthew Healy and George Daniel." It sounded like oly the last oe was part of the 1975
  • A music video for "There's a Honey", directed by Silent Tapes, was released on 11 April 2017. - the second paragraph maybe could add some description here.
  • Should mention the song was "remixed"/"re-worked"
  • Critical reception to the song was largely positive - besides the list's ending you could add more information

 Done

Composition

[edit]
  • The first paragraph should be a new section called background
Great! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first expressed interest in producing the single after his manager, after Jamie Oborne, who managed both the 1975 and Pale Waves" - first expressed interest in producing the single after Jamie Oborne, who managed both the 1975 and Pale Waves
  • Baron-Gracie explained in an interview with NME - shouldn't it be BBC?
  • "sonically bigger", - sonically bigger".
  • "Healy later gifted this guitar to Baron-Gracie as a birthday present" - cool, but fancruft
  • "My Mind Makes Noises" - the year of release in between brackets
  • Move the sample to the beginning of this section
  • "demonstrating the sonic nature of the track." - *" demonstrating the "dreamy and dark" sound

 Done

Release

[edit]
  • Retitle it to "Release and production", see below
See below MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There's a Honey" was originally released on 20 February 2017 as a download and made available on streaming services the same day - "There's a Honey" was released on 20 February 2017, via digital download and streaming services in various countries by Dirty Hit
  • The DIY source regarding the release doesn't cover the sentence, perhaps Apple Music or other platforms.
  • Move the chart performance to the reception section

 Done

Music Video

[edit]
  • Use this source 1for the MV director and some more detail
  • Video of the band - A video of the band's
  • Source to back up this description?
  • Is that really necessary? It's just a brief summary of the video's visuals. I feel like, in this case, since there's no judgement or controversial claims being made, the video can effectively serve as its own source.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already added a source, so its more than good enough. Better to have those claims backed up than nothing at all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink DIY
  • "Pale Waves in the "There's a Honey" music video. Matty Healy of The 1975 served as the video's creative director." - A shot from the "There's a Honey" music video. It took inspiration from American sculptor Daniel Wurtzel (The shot has to be allusive to something, it is not allusive to Healy)

 Done

Reception

[edit]
  • Add The Line of Best Fit review like you did for the NME
  • Don't forget to move the chart performance from the section below here.
Separate the sections, this is way too big MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Track listing

[edit]
  • All lyrics are written by Pale Waves; all music is composed by Pale Waves - remove from here
Is it really needed? Its already on the lead, body of the article and infobox. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the last release (2018) the album remix?

 Done

Charts

[edit]
  • Weekly chart performance for "Television Romance"??
  • Official Charts Company - OCC
  • I can't verify the Scotland and UK Vinyl Chart, both are dead links
Archive them please, using the tool MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UK Physical Sales Chart only shows me "Television Romance", despite they were both released alongside
    It was a double A-side release, and for whatever reason, it only shows the first A-side, which was TVR.
Shouldn't it be Chart performance for "Television Romance"/"There's a Honey"? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Release history

[edit]
  • Not worldwide, no release is worldwide, just say various
  • Add streaming and spell out digital download
  • Wikilink the formats
  • Needs sources

 Done

Personnel

[edit]
  • Move the section before the charts section
Said before, not after MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use spaced en dash,  –

 Done

References

[edit]
  • Ones to watch is a dead reference and it is not reliable as it is associated with Live Nation, remove
It could be an interest of them touring with Live Nation and not other companies, by having reviews done by Ones to watch and other kind of promo MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love Music; Love Life is a blog, in their about section they call themselves a blog
  • I'm not sure Tunebat is reliable, remove or replace for a reliable source
None of those articles are GA's. Plus I have quite some doubts regarding their reability and excluding that source, won't make the article worst. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 8 needs accessdate
If you accessed the source, then it is appropriated. I believe now is ref 5, an interview. Same for reference 10, the charts are also missing it MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 10 is dead and since it is an interview it can stay
  • Source 14 is also dead
  • NME and DIY have double wikilink, remove the latter
  • I removed some dup links in the article, but when it comes to sources, I prefer to include the link (you never know when content will be re-arranged or excised, which could remove a link or place an unlinked instances before a linked instance, etc.)--Gen. Quon[Talk] 17:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from. Its fine MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source check has been conducted.

 Done

Overall

[edit]
  • Hopefully all these sources are archived, you can use the tool to do so
It will get there even without archiving the links, is just for future reference. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All pertinent links have been archived.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this performed live? It seems to me that it was after a simple google search
  • Oh yeah; it's performed at all their shows. But I don't know where I would say that or how I would do it in a way that wouldn't come across as just a catalogue of setlists.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can say Pale waves performed "There's a Honey" on their first world tour, name of the tour, (20XX-20XX) as the first track of their setlist. Sometimes, the sources have a little description of how it was performed, you can also add that. I noticed they performed it at BBC Introducing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig up some info and see what I can find.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, let me know once you are done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also missing a section with the personnel written and what they did and instruments played, engineering....could call it production
Every GA and even FA's have this. This article won't be an exception. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gen. Quon I left you responses for your questions and comments as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarioSoulTruthFan: OK, I still need to find some info on live performances of the song, but other than that, I've fixed or responded to the issues you've noticed. I'm holding firm with both Ones to Watch and Tunebat.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Ones to Watch, please read this discussion where I brought up the issue, see here. It was deemed right away as not reliable "On Ones to Watch, I can't find anything about the writers' credentials, or who the editorial team might be, or if there is one". This is anything but a reliable source, anyone can explain lyrics of a track. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you provided shows that the consensus was to use these sources "sparingly". Either way, the person who wrote the piece in question is a professional music writer[2], the site is owned and operated by an established music company, it has an established editorial staff[3], and the site is verified by Muck Rack.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That consensus is regarding the other source. You can see that in the comments. Anyone can write anything on linkedin. Plus the editorial staff is a Live Music nation promoter...with this we go back to what I mention in the first place. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literally every commercial publication can be considered a "promoter" in some sense (newspapers want to turn a profit, publishers need to sell books). Wikipedia doesn't unilaterally ban this content; it simply requires that the content is not being misused to self-promote.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the thing is being a promoter with no second intentions and unbiased. Something that I have serious doubts regarding Ones to Watch due to their partnership with Live Nation. They don't state something in this vein, "Some artists covered here are promoted by Live Nation. Ones to Watch is an independent subsidiary of Live Nation." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Perhaps we should ask for a second opinion regarding the site?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Do you want me to write the second opinion paragraph? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Overall

[edit]

The section is such a mess I can't recall what I'm supposed to answer and not. Let's see if I missed something.

  • There is still the issue of Ones to Watch description
  • I changed the first part of the sentence to read "In an online post announcing the track's release" so that people know it's not a review, but more of a press release type thing. I still see no reason why this isn't acceptable.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing a written personnel section
On top of the bullet one, that's what I am saying, see above for example of an FA MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a requirement for either GA or FA. Personally, I don't see a need to convert into prose information that is already written in a list--especially when there's not really anything interesting to say.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.  Done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music video doesn't need to be on an external link, can be easily added to the infobox as misc
 Done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Live performances
  • I've found a lot of videos of them performing the song, but nothing really about the performances themselves or what makes them special. I don't think this article can support a "live" section.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2 and 3. I took five minutes to dig these up, I don't mind give you more than seven days. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they perform the song at every concert, but I don't see how that is really notable enough to include. Besides, a section on live performances is also not a requirement of GA.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's about having a broad coverage and add all the live performances you can document. Hurts no one, and is good for readers. Plus is promotion of the song. So please do a proper research and add it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that this could border on cruft and/or WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. And again, this isn't a requirement for GA. Plenty of GAs pass without a section on live performances. If the performances haven't really made a splash in the media, there's no reason to include them.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 16:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They pass, because there is no report of them! If the song has been performed several times, it is not about making a big splash in the media. If it is borderline with cruft, then all the FA's and GA's have to be nuked to the ground and eliminate those sections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have accepted Tunebat
  • Missing access-date on various sources and a small change on "Critical reviews"
Can you link me to that FAC? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dug around and couldn't find the FAC, but I did find this.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works too.  Done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gen. Quon I believe this is it, have I forgotten to mention something? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: Here's a few more updates.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: OK, I've made a new section since the old one got a bit cluttered, too! Here are my main points:

  • "Release and reception" is a perfectly fine title
Yes, I just wanted a change on "critical reviews"...can call it critical reception or critical response. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some searching, and I don't feel that a section on live performances is necessary. As I said, almost every mention of the song's performance simply mentions it was performed. That's really not that interesting. Either way, to satisfy GA requirements, an article needs to be "broad in its coverage"; it does not have to be "comprehensive". Per WP:GACR, "[This] allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."
What search? If the information is available just add it, I can give you more than a week to do so. No worries. That0s true, but the information is available, so if you can make it broad in coverage, just do it. Why not? I'm standing my ground on this one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: How is this?--Gen. Quon[Talk] 02:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Avoid using Youtube links, add the ones I provided you as well, one can replace the YouTube link MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added info about BBC Introducing here. Regarding the YouTube videos: While they are self-published, they aren't anonymous or unverifiable, and they have also been issued by a Vevo-verified account. In this article, they're simply functioning as a direct link to primary sources mentioned in reliable secondary sources; in other words, their inclusion is more of a finding aid than anything else. I feel like that satisfies the strict criteria outlined here.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have the YouTube and the Dork source this will be fine. Just add these two performances and this will be more than enough NME Awards and BBC Radio 1’s Big Weekend MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those have been added.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon I can see where you coming from, as stated below, and I'm willig to have "Ones to Watch" there. I can pass the article, do you want to make any changes or did I missed something? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: It looks good to me. Thanks for the very thorough review! It's made the article much stronger.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 14:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2ndopinion

[edit]

I would like to hear a 2ndopinion regarding a source, which I find problematic but the nominator does not. The source in question is "Ones to Watch", and the interview on it is fine. However, it's the review that has been brought to some doubt. Some time ago, there was a discussion on Wikipedia (brought by me) regarding its reliability, please see here. Something that I have serious doubts about as Ones to Watch has a partnership with Live Nation and could be a conflict of interests. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion for use of source previously discussed on a separate page as requiring careful scrutiny and limited use. The article cited includes an interview and the contents appears unobjectionable; it is also attributed by individual band member names which is useful. The Wikipedia article also makes limited use of the interview for the purpose of documenting re-mixes and re-recording of songs. Given the limited use of the quotes, this appears to satisfy the need for applying guarded use of the material from this source, used in only one place in this GAN nomination. Its placement might look better in the section just above it, in "Background (and recording)", since Wikipedia generally does not include recording discussion in the section on 'Music and lyrics', but that's a separate question for the nominator and reviewer to decide on. The second opinion requested here is that the limited use of the interview used in one place of this Wikipedia article seems to be useful and to work. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The interview on Ones to Watch is not the problem, the other source 1 is the problem. Sorry, I should have been more accurate about it. Its basically a review. However, I do agree with you it should be on the section above that portion of the text. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause and MarioSoulTruthFan: I went ahead and flipped the final paragraph, moving it to the preceding section, which I have appropriately retitled "Background and production".--Gen. Quon[Talk] 18:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That second cite from Ones to Watch you mention depends on this one from NME: [4]. It looks fully consistent with its cited article as to accuracy which is the Thomas Smith cite (currently #4) in the Wikipedia article's bibliography. Looks good to use. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. The NME source has nothing to do with the One to Watch one. Could you please explain it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article from Ones to Watch which you just linked as the correct one to look at, there you will find a quote taken from an NME article which I looked up and verified as coming from the NME article already being used in this Wikipedia article about this song. The quote seems reliable and this article from Ones to Watch seems to be useful to the Wikipedia article and good to retain in the text. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are citing a reliable source, doesn't make another source reliable. Other wise, every single blog available online would be reliable. Doesn't work like that, if it was the other way around...maybe. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were misusing sources it cited then that would point to it as an unreliable source. However, this article seems to use its citation in a reliable manner. The talk page discussion you linked above recommended caution in the use of this source and it did not disqualify its use as unreliable on Wikipedia. If you believe there is something unreliable in this article from Ones to Watch, then you can indicate which part of it you feel is unreliable for discussion here. The short article as I looked at it looks unobjectionable, however, if you can find a part of it which you feel is wrong then you can present it here for discussion. If you and I and the nominator have all read this source and cannot find an objectionable part in it, then it can be used with caution as the link you provided said that this source can be used in Wikipedia articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are flipping the script, the discussion I linked said udiscover music can be used with caution. If you read carefully you will find that besides me...two other editors said the source, in this case Ones to Watch, should be avoided, citing one of them: "On Ones to Watch, I can't find anything about the writers' credentials, or who the editorial team might be, or if there is one." I'm not suggesting that the claims on Ones to Watch are atrocious or challenging in any way, shape or form. Some even state "don’t use it unless you have to", this source won't help much more since the singer of the band already explained the lyrics and their context. What is at stake here is the ties Ones to Watch has to Live Nation, henceforth the website could be used to promote certain artists and not give everyone a fair and equal chance. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause and MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you all for chiming in here. IMHO, the source is being used here to succinctly describe the meaning of the song's lyrics. I fail to see how that is, in any way, "promot[ing] certain artists" or "not giv[ing] everyone a fair and equal chance". How exactly is it "promoting" this song? And how is it doing so in a way that hurts other bands? Now, if I used the source to, say, claim that this song was the greatest ever written, then I could see your point (that would basically be PRy PUFF). But the source isn't being used that way, so I fail to see how there is any sort of conflict of interest.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 20:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make a great point there. I'm ok with "One to Watch" being used for that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:There%27s_a_Honey/GA1&oldid=1119417030"