Template:Did you know nominations/Cirrus (song)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cirrus (song)
[edit]Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
- I'm starting to see some problems. Is there any other info than a critical reception of this song, anything about the song's composition, background? I'm not sure if that is a DYK requirement, though. Also the citation positioning is a little funky, and there are unneccesary ".[citation],"s going on in this article. I'd suggest copyediting if you can. 和DITOREtails 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the citation positioning and I will fix the content issue when it is shown to be a DYK requirement. The rules are, to my knowledge, that it needs to be 1,500 characters of new words, for DYK purposes they don't need to be your own but of course they have to be in quotes if they're not and quotes of more than 40 words need to be in blockquotes per WP:MOS. Feel free to correct me, though.--Launchballer 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Excluding the quotations, the article looks like this, and since we don't count quotations as article length this is ineligible for DYK. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, I'd always assumed that the quotations did count so long as they weren't above 40 words... I'm going to need a bit to expand it.--Launchballer 23:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The sourcing isn't always the best: House of Balloons (the quote from which has just been blockquoted) appears to be a personal music blog and thus not a WP:RS (it should probably be removed entirely, unless there's something about the site that makes it reliable sourcing); the Critical reception section remains almost entirely quoted material, and the new Music video section's second half, another critical reception section, is much the same style. There needs to be far more in your own words summarizing the reviews, and far less directly quoted material from them. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Launchballer, I'll be honest: when I saw you had taken the quote from the dropout site, split it in two, reversed the segments, and retained "the video" but moved it out of the quote, I stopped dead, and I haven't been able to get back to it. What you did is just not okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't the exact original quote, so I've just restored it. There's also this bit about smoking LSD with the Beav—since LSD isn't smoked, there's something wrong. Once you've fixed that, I'm going to call for a new reviewer, as I want another view on the quotes vs. summarizing issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the QPQ. Although I was going to call for another reviewer at this stage, I really have to point out that two of the reviews you summarized are now back at full-length quotes because your paraphrases either weren't accurate (i.e., smoking LSD) or just split the quote without any summarizing. The same issues affect other summaries, and it's a fundamental flaw here: "aestivate" has the exact opposite meaning of what the quote is trying to convey, the "bodily function" isn't a literal comparison and shouldn't be made to sound so, and Grishkof didn't say it was "best suited" for the rain (which means it would be less so for other things) just that it was (on a day that it was raining) "perfect for the rain". You need to retain the meaning of the text you're paraphrasing, which has not been achieved in this article. Until you can succeed in this, and also reduce your dependence on quotes, I don't see how this nomination can be approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
New reviewer needed for full regular DYK review, which should also address the issues noted above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- What makes Jack Flynn on Vimeo a reliable source for something we are going to place on the main page? Stonerdays, which proclaims itself as a blog, does not appear to be a reliable source by Wikipedia standards either, and while probably acceptable for providing critical reception on the song, it shouldn't be used to source factual information about the song unless it can be shown to meet WP:RS. Earmilk.com similarly describes itself as a blog, so needs to be shown to meet WP:RS. "Supermanipulated" simply isn't a word, and is thus clearly not encyclopaedic language. In the "Music video" section, the article states "Critical reception for the video has been positive as well.." which appears to follow on from the "Critical reception" section, despite actually appearing earlier in the article. Harrias talk 08:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed to check on issues raised by Harrias above, and to complete the full regular DYK review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article has been well-formatted and has good citations. My concern would be that I don't really understand some of the text, such as "The results are complicated machines and gigantic robots" in reference to the video, and the two quotes from critics regarding the video. I'm also curious if all the reviews for the song were overwhelmingly positive or if there were actually some critical reviews, as I might expect from any musician. Mvblair (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from prose issues, there is questionable referencing. What makes Stonerdays reliable? Indieshuffle? Earmilk? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indie Shuffle is a music blog owned by the Spin Media network. ([1]) The review was written by its founder, Jason Grishkoff. ([2]) Earmilk is another music blog, owned by Complex magazine, and seems slightly below or on par with Indie Shuffle as far as reliability is concerned. ([3]) StonerDays doesn't seem the least bit reliable; their reviews are self-published, with the one cited in the article being posted under a pseudonym and their author link referring back to the homepage. Whisternefet (t · c) 23:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Music blogs... no wonder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I did some copyediting here and there, paraphrasing some of the reviews while putting information from the lead into some new sections; this expanded the prose from 1981 bytes to 2342. I'm not very experienced with writing articles about music, so I don't know if this conforms to any sort of style guideline, but at least its more sightly than before, and puts more focus on the track than the music video. Whisternefet (t · c) Also to note, excluding quotations, the prose consists of roughly 1800 bytes. Whisternefet (t · c) 19:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Article is currently at AfD; new review should wait until AfD closes, since if the article is deleted there's no point in doing a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- AfD closed as "no consensus"; new reviewer needed to check on article as it stands now, and that the changes address issues previously raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, the length and time of creation are both good. The referencing and quoting has been much improved since I last looked at the article. It still isn't perfect, but this is DYK, not GA. Nothing contentious is suggested, and the less reliable source are only used for critical reception, which is understandable I think. The hook fact is referenced inline appropriately. No evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing. Only possible change I would make, given how long this has hung around, would be to remove "recently" from the hook, but I'll leave that to the set builder. Harrias talk 12:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
