Template:Did you know nominations/V. Rose, V. Rose (album)
- 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) 22:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
V. Rose, V. Rose (album)
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that CCM Magazine called the debut album by singer V. Rose an "upbeat pop production set to spiritually-grounded lyrics"?
Created by HotHat (talk). Nominated by 3family6 (talk) at 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC).
Review of Article 1, V. Rose (album): New enough (created and nominated 1 June) but see issue 1 below. Not self-nom so no QPQ required. Original hook is acceptable, short enough, and sourced to online citation #1 which has sign-up access only, and is accepted AGF. Article image is fair-use with appropriate licence. The text is objectively-written, in neutral style, but see issue 2. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found in sources for citations #2-#5 (#1 could not be checked). Issues: (1) The article is not long enough: 1469 characters instead of 1500+. Remember the prose is counted, but tables such as the Track Listing section are not. Please add more fully-cited sections, e.g. (a) Recording section (musical director, style and type of backing, backing musicians etc., (b) Inspirations section (whether other recordings or artists inspired her, whether she's developing any particular ideas in this album, (c) Track content section: (what each song is about).(2) Re neutrality: Almost all of the prose in the article at present is about critical reception, which is almost all about praise. So the article needs more sections which do not contain praise (e.g. the ones suggested in issue 1 above) to balance things out.(3) Re access to external links: Citation #1 is sign-up view only' #2 is a deadlink; #3-#6 are OK. Summary: if issues (1)-(3) can be resolved,this nom should be OK.The deal-breaker is the length issue, which is why this review has a no-icon (temporarily, I hope). --Storye book (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Review of Article 2, V. Rose: Created 30 May, nominated 1 June, so it is new enough; also long enough. No disambig links found. Text is objectively written, in neutral style, and fully referenced. All external links checked for sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing; none found. Issues:
(4) The hook must be written out in full with citation in both articles, but it does not appear in this article.--Storye book (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Storye book:: I expanded the article to include a "Background" and "Style" section, which should satisfy both the neutrality and the size issues. I'm signed up on CCM Magazine's emailing list (so I can do better Wikipedia editing!), so I can view the source fine. Per WP:PAYWALL, limited access to a source does not preclude its use on Wikipedia. Christian Music Zine went defunct several months ago, but the site went down only recently. I do not know if they have their website archived somewhere. When the V. Rose article was created the site was still active. I'm not sure how to handle a case like this, though I know deadlinks usually don't have to be removed, at least right away. I'll keep an I out and see if an archived version eventually turns up.--¿3family6 contribs 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ User:3family6. Thank you for the update; issues 1-3 are now resolved. Please note I am obliged to flag up paywalls and deadlinks, because as a reviewer I am given a DYK tool to check all that, and it shows other reviewers all that I have found, and it allows nominators to resolve them as far as they can or want to. I am here to help clear the backlog of DYK noms, so I try to avoid delays, and its actually quicker to deal with everything upfront than to turn a blind eye so that another reviewer delays us with the same thing later. So thank you for your patience; this is done in good faith. I apologise for not realising that this is a double nom, so I have added the review of V.Rose above.
That means we now have issue 4, but you should be able to resolve that one quickly and easily. When issue 4 is dealt with,this nom should be ready to go. --Storye book (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks, Storye book.--¿3family6 contribs 13:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, 3family6. Hook is now referenced with online citation #6 in both articles. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @ User:3family6. Thank you for the update; issues 1-3 are now resolved. Please note I am obliged to flag up paywalls and deadlinks, because as a reviewer I am given a DYK tool to check all that, and it shows other reviewers all that I have found, and it allows nominators to resolve them as far as they can or want to. I am here to help clear the backlog of DYK noms, so I try to avoid delays, and its actually quicker to deal with everything upfront than to turn a blind eye so that another reviewer delays us with the same thing later. So thank you for your patience; this is done in good faith. I apologise for not realising that this is a double nom, so I have added the review of V.Rose above.
