Wikipedia:Peer review/Help Is on the Way/archive1

Help Is on the Way

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel this article is ready for FA. It's a bit shorter than most FAs, but I'm almost positive I've run the possible refs for this article dry. Anyway, while it is currently at GA status, I've been doing a lot of editing recently, and it's far off from the GA reviewed version.

As always, I'm a firm believer in "You scratch my back, I scratch your back", so if anyone is willing to take up this review, I'll kindly repay the favor.

Thanks, Famous Hobo (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've just did the scoping for the charts table. It's very important you do this for featured articles, but I'll be willing to take a look at this when I get chance, and thanks for the support on my FA candidate. I'll be sending you a colorful flag on your talk page as a present! edtiorEهեইдအ😎 21:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi Famous Hobo. I will do a review of this article for you. If you happen to have time, it would be great if you could look at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Title_TK/archive1. Thank you.

• It's true, as you have mentioned, that this article is a little on the short side in terms of typical FA candidates. I can make some suggestions about improving your current content, and about places to look to possibly expand it. I understand you have exhausted the sources you've found so far. I don't want to discourage you, but I suspect some reviewers at FA will not find it long enough or developed enough in its current state—but I could be wrong, too.

Yeah, I'm expecting some cautious editors to be weary of the size. But honestly, I'm not too worried, since there are short FAs, like MissingNo., Bam Thwok, and How Brown Saw the Baseball Game, the latter of which graced the front page in 2015 despite being the shortest FA on Wikipedia.

• You could have a background section on Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Although these may have been big issues in the U.S., some worldwide readers may not be familiar with the background on them. I'm sure you could find a wealth of info to put about this, which is good, but be of course be careful not to add a disproportionate amount of info compared with the other sections.

Personally, I feel that having an entire section dedicated to the disasters would be a bit tacked on for no reason. I could mention that Katrina was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in US history, and something similar for the oil spill, but that's all I'd feel comfortable including, as anything more might be seen as extra info for no reason.

• This [[1]] came up for me in a Google Book search, and it's likely the song is mentioned somewhere in here, but it doesn't come up in the limited preview available. It's possible this could be a "false positive" but, maybe, if you can somehow get access to a preview of more pages, and the song is indeed mentioned, it could be a cultural reference to explore.

Unfortunately, that book came out in 2009, two years before this song was released.

• I notice you have a couple of interviews with the band. Have you scoured the Internet for other interviews with McIlrath ([[2]]) or other bandmembers that, even if they don't mention "Help is on the Way" specifically, might have some general quotes you can use to show their activism, etc.?

While I won't say I've looked through every interview, I have looked at quite a few (one of these days I want to start working on the band member articles). As for their activism, I have two references mentioning their activism. I could add more, since it is the one aspect of the band that really separates them from a lot of other bands.

• I was hoping to find info an entry for the release at Discogs that might give more info, including who did the artwork for the single. Unfortunately there was no entry for it. But maybe if you have (or can find images online) a copy of the single such additional info (or other additional info about the single) may be available?

Yeah, there's really nothing I can additionally add to the Personnel and credits section. There is this handy list (a couple of posts in) of all the albums and singles by Rise Against, with pictures, but everything on the Help Is on the Way single CD is already mentioned in the article.

• These are some general ideas for expanding the article. I'll try to think of more ideas if I can. I assume you have done an exhaustive Google search about every mention of the song, so I didn't check that. Next I will make comments about the content that currently exists in the article. Moisejp (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, thanks for the comments! Looking forward to the next batch. As for your peer review, I'll be happy to take it up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments: I'll start these now and try to finish them off this weekend.

Recording and inspiration

• "Stevenson and Livermore engineered the song alongside Andrew Berlin, while Chris Lord-Alge served as the mixer": Possibly "alongside" and "served as" could be considered a little colloquial. How about "Stevenson and Livermore engineered the song with Andrew Berlin, while Chris Lord-Alge mixed it." I don't know if my second half is a big improvement over yours... hmm, but there should be a better way to express that than "served as". Sorry I only managed one comment right now (I started another one but then realized it was more complicated than I thought, so I will tackle it next time). I'll continue very soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't think that those words would be seen as colloquial, but I actually like the small changes. I think a better sentence could be something like "Stevenson and Livermore engineered the song with Andrew Berlin, while Chris Lord-Alge assisted as the mixer". I'm not sure how much of a difference "assisted" is when compared to "served as", but it's a start at least.

• The Personnel and credits section mentions Stevenson and Livermore as both producers and engineers, while the main text only mentions them as engineers. (I see they are also listed as producers in the infobox.) I would highlight their production credit in the main section (in addition to engineering, if need be). Production, I would argue, implies more decision-making and artistic contribution than engineering, so it is important to mention. I understand that Andrew Berlin only did engineering, not production, and the way you have it now succinctly mentions the three in one sentence. But I'm sure you could find a good way to reword it all.

Stevenson and Livermore are mentioned as the producers in the first sentence, right after McIlrath.

• Oops, missed that. My bad! :) Moisejp (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The issue of "The" vs. "the" mid-sentence is controversial, and I don't want to impose my views if you have a strong opinion about this. But I just want to confirm you don't want to refer to the studio as the Blasting Room rather than The Blasting Room mid-sentence.

Yeah, I remember reading through some of "The Beatles" vs "the Beatles" arguments. Looking at the official website, apparently the "the" is not capitalized mid-sentence, so I'll replace that.

• I saw your comments above, but are you sure you don't want to add even two or three more sentences here giving extra background about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath? It doesn't have to be a big section, but even just a couple more sentences of background. Currently you say "McIlrath also noted that he was critical of the United States government for its handling of various disasters, calling Hurricane Katrina". What was the United States government handling of this, and why was this criticized as being insufficient? I mean, I have a general idea, but some people in the world won't know about this piece of history. And the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, too. You mention the "lack of legislation to prevent another oil spill", which is a start, but how about a sentence or two about the Deepwater Horizon oilspill itself? To be honest, personally I'm not familiar with that event. Was it a senseless oil spill, did it have a big impact on the environment and/or economy, was the company behind it not held sufficiently responsible? You provide a wiki-link, but I just feel it would be not inappropriate to add even a few more details here in the article. But if you really feel uncomfortable adding more, as you have written above, I won't insist. Moisejp (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

From an American's perspective, Hurrican Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were REALLY BIG. In regards to the response to Katrina, many Americans criticized President George W. Bush and FEMA for various reasons, such as not properly acknowledging the people of New Orleans during the disaster, and just a general lack of urgency to even start offering assistance (there's a pretty neat read about Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina if you want to check it out). As for the oil spill, let's just say that the Wikipedia article states that it has been called one of the worst environmental disasters in US history. As for the company behind the oil spill, BP, they paid a hefty fine, but from what I remember reading, some people didn't think BP paid enough. Now bringing this back to the original comment you made, I can see how someone not from the US might not be able to understand the huge impact of both disasters, so I'll add in some sentences about both disasters.

• "Rise Against unveiled the song on the California radio-station KROQ-FM on January 17, 2011,[2] before releasing it as the Endgame's lead single on January 25." I wonder whether this sentence would logically better fit in the "(Release and) Reception" section. You would have to rework that section somehow to fit it in. I don't know, it's just a thought. :) Moisejp (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably, though I modeled this section after City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song), which does something similar with the song's release.

Composition:

• Audio sample caption: The fair use rationale for the sound clip says "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style..." My understanding—and I always try to implement this rule when using sound clips in song articles—is that the caption should highlight musical and/or lyrical aspects of the song. For example, see the "Off You" sound clip I include in the Title TK article you reviewed. My understanding has been that this caption should indirectly amount to a justification of why the sound clip (a fair use of a copyrighted material) is necessary. The sound clip adds to the reader's understanding of aspects mentioned in the main text, a fuller understanding that they would not be able to get from the words alone. I'm not sure if this is absolutely necessary for a GA, but I would argue that if you are aiming for FA, you should definitely consider this. Right now your Composition section is quite short, so you don't have that much material to work with, but referring to its "anthemic" quality in the caption could be a start. If you want, you could consider redoing the sound clip to a portion that includes both "clean" and "screaming" vocals, to illustrate this aspect. Or if you can cite how the lyrics in the sound clip clearly illustrate the song's theme, that could be another angle to highlight in the caption. Or if possibly you can find additional comments about the sound of the song (in addition to its "anthemic" quality) from your sources, you could add these to the main text and the caption. I would argue that the genre and chord progression are less valid aspects to highlight in the caption, but possibly they could be included if you also include other, more valid elements.

Good catch. I like the idea of contrasting clean and unclean vocals, though the screaming section is a bit short, and not very interesting (it's basically just "right here, right here" three times. It does have an interesting effect when watching the music video, as it imitates survivors screaming for helicopters to notice them, but that's pure original research, so I won't even bother going there). Another thing it could mention are the small pauses of silence in the song. In the Drum! article, the band's drummer mentions that the small pauses of silence are used to smoothly move from verses to chorus to the bridge. It wouldn't be too hard to change the sample to include either of those ideas, but I'd like to hear your take.

• I'll try to have a listen to the full song sometime in the next couple of days, then I can give you an opinion. The drums and the clean/unclean vocal and the "anthemic" quality sound like they could be good to highlight, but, yeah, I'll listen to the song to give a more informed opinion. About Audacity, I'm pretty sure it's free—I believe I downloaded it freely back in the day. I think there are instructions somewhere on Wikipedia about downloading and using Audacity (but if you need help finding these, I could). Or, if you don't have the energy to learn a new tool (I've been there!), maybe I could help you, at least with adding a fade out to the song. Another possibility is, for example if the drums section and the scream section are in different parts of the song and wouldn't fit into a consecutive 23-second stretch—and if you decide you want to highlight both sections in the caption—a technique I've seen used is to include a fade out and a fade in, in the middle of the sound clip, to include different portions of the song in the sound clip. It's just a possibility to consider. Moisejp (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Your new sound clip (including fade-in and fade-out!) and caption are great. I tweaked the caption a little for clarity—see if this works for you. Moisejp (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Maybe I caught you before you had a chance, but are you also going to add mention of this drum technique in the main text? You know, I was skimming that Drum article, and it looks like there is a lot of good material in there. You could surely fit in a couple of good, dense sentence mentioning various techniques the drummer uses. Possibly you're concerned about talking too much about the drumming compared with other elements (that you don't have sources for), but I think if you keep it to a couple of (densely packed) sentences or so, you should be able to keep a good balance and not have the drumming description overwhelming.
• It's not too much to work with, but another little way you could beef up the Composition section slightly would be to move a few phrases from the Critical Reception section where the reviewers are commenting specifically on the sound of the music: "understated", "explosive", and "storm of guitars". You could have a sentence along the lines of "Reviewers have commented on the 'understated' yet 'explosive' sound of the music, and on 'the storm of guitars' in the song." ←That would probably need editing, but I'm just saying you could do something like that. Anyway, just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Audio sample: (Minor point) I see you uploaded the sound clip. Did you use Audacity to create it? When I create sound clips using Audacity, I always try to use the fade out feature for the last second or so of the clip. That way it doesn't end really abruptly and jarringly for the listener. Or if you used a different tool, maybe that feature is also available in the tool you used. Moisejp (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Audacity. Since I do most of my edits on a Chromebook, it's impossible to use really any music editing software, since Chromebooks only allow for Internet usage (it's quite a bothersome, but at least they're pretty cheap). I understand the problem with the abrupt ending, so I might be able to politely ask someone if they don't mind putting in a fade out. BTW, if your wondering how I even got the audio sample, I more or less ripped it right from the Youtube music video (Youtube to MP3, MP3 to Ogg, then upload to Wikipedia). Not the best method, but it gets the job done.

• Sorry, but I find the second paragraph (except for the sentence about vocal style) to be quite weak and to be a rehash of the Recording and inspiration section. "While Genevieve Koski of The A.V. Club found that the lyrics could pertain to any difficult situation" seems like an especially unsatisfying piece of information to include. I know that you don't have much material to work from, and this section is already short. Possibly combine this section with the previous section: Recording, inspiration, and composition? I'm not sure in this case whether it would be better for the flow to talk about recording or inspiration first. Moisejp (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reading through this section, I agree with you, it is quite pointless. However, I do think it's important to mention what the song is actually about, since the first section never explicitly states what the lyrics are about.

• I agree too. But, as I suggested above, maybe one way to address this, without it being repetitive, would be to somehow combine the Inspiration and Lyrics (Composition) sections. Moisejp (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reception:

• This section is generally quite good. One comment: The article says the song was the "first" of the band's singles to reach the Billboard Hot 100, but according to your source [[3]], it seems to be the only one to do so?

Your right, I'll change it

• I see you have the Australia Hitseekers ref archived, but is it possible to link directly to the PDF? I was directed to a page where I had to click a link to the PDF. Moisejp (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It used to link directly to the PDF, but recently it starting putting you on the page with the link to the PDF. I don't think I can do anything about it, since the link and the PDF have the exact same url.

Music video (and beyond):

• These sections seem to all be good. I didn't check all of your references but did look at some of them (mostly ones near the end). @Famous Hobo, I think that is all for my review. :) Moisejp (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp, thanks for the comments. I'm a bit tired as of the moment, but I'll start tweaking this article soon. As for your peer review, I'll look over the comments you left when I get the chance. Thanks again for the review, it was very helpful! Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)