Talk:Call Me When You're Sober/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Freikorp (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead

"The song was written by Amy Lee and Terry Balsamo and produced by Dave Fortman and it was included on their second studio album The Open Door." - strikes me as having too many uses of the word "and". Suggest comma or period somewhere in there.

~~Lead says "mixed to positive reviews", body says "generally positive"~~

"before its official physical release as a CD single. Later, on August 15, the song was available for digital download" - were physical singles also made available for purchase on this day? Also "Later" is redundant. I think you should merge information about radio release and purchasable releases into one sentence, i.e "before its official physical release as a CD single and for digital download on [date].

Background and release

~~"In an interview with MTV News" - when?~~

I don't like how you have a reasonable sized attributed quote box AND a large unattributed quote (when did she say that and who to?) as well. The direct quotes to actual prose ratio is too high.

"complete a--hole." - Wikipedia is not censored.

Maybe this was the way it was written on the website, so if that's the case, then this iteration I believe would have to stay. Unless WP:CENSOR trumps it. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is Evboards.com? A fan-site or official site?~~

Composition

Why have you gone to such detail to attribute what key the song is in? Is this information usually contested or controversial? Why can't you just say ""Call Me When You're Sober" was written in the key of E minor"?

~~"her still-raw emotions" - strikes me as un-encyclopeadic wording~~

Everything in the first paragrpah from "During an interview with MTV News," down strikes me as unnecessary paraphrasing from the above section. We've already established what the song is about.

Reception

~~"the website The Trades" - what kind of website is 'The Trades'? Music review?~~

"He noted that those are the only two songs" - perhaps clarify the only two songs on their album.

~~I don't see a reason to add "[Ms.]"~~

~~What is a "suit breakup song." Is it trying to imply it's an upperclass break-up song? I don't get what is trying to be said here.~~

"The song was nominated in the category for Favorite Rock Song" - I think it would be relevant to mention which song it lost to.

~~Two uses of "which later became its peak position" - I don't see any need for the word 'later'~~

~~"and it spent a total of seventeen weeks." - sentence fragment.~~

You mention the ARIA certification in the lead but not in the prose

Music video

~~"interview behind the scenes of the video"- there's something wrong with this wording. Perhaps clarify exactly where this interview can be found.~~

~~Straddle does not wikilink to where you intended~~

"first Lee then the dancers are lifted into the air." How are they lifted into the air?

~~Does every instance of "lover" need to be in inverted commas? I'd say you only have to do this in the first instance~~

Again, consider mentioning which video the music video lost to in its nominations, but I won't fail you for this if you don't want to do it.

Live performances

Wikilink Jingle Ball, assuming that's the same concert

"We're going to do something completely different from everyone else tonight — and rock as hard as we can". Have I missed something? What makes that completely different? Did all the other performers sing timid songs and not do any rock movements? Perhaps you could clarify this to the reader.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
~~There's a problem with Ref 13: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "azcentral" defined multiple times with different content"~~

Big problem. Checklinks finds that an unusually high level of your references are dead. These need to be archived if possible. I'd also strongly recommend archiving every source, though that is not a requirement to pass GA.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Ohhhh, this is probably going to fail. I haven't worked on it enough to get it finished yet, I only nominated a week or two ago. I was going to work during the nomination period. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I noticed somebody had begun a review of your nomination The Open Door and that this article was your only active nomination not being reviewed. Well if it does fail just ping me when you nominate it again and i'll take another look at it. Freikorp (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too bad. The main concern is the amount of dead links. I'm putting this on hold. I'm not fussed if you need some time to get around to addressing the concerns, just let me know. Freikorp (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a few co noms open but none of them were listed under my name.... it's okay though. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I probably won't get to this until Sunday evening and maybe I won't even finish it. I've been busy and devoting the time I have had into the album article. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 05:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I'm not fussed if it stays open for a couple weeks, or even longer as long as a date gets set for when you'll look at it. Just can't leave it open indefinitely unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits[edit]

I had listed this at WP:GOCE in hopes of making the article better during nomination period, but die to the exceedingly fast review, Freikorp, I'd like you to check and see if you have any problems with the user's copyedits. @Twofingered Typist: please do be careful! The album was done by Bafflegab before his retirement, and has come under quite a bit of criticism. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: - The copy edit is complete. Perhaps you'd like to explain why I need to be "careful!"? I devoted several hours to this c/e so if that isn't careful, I don't know what is.Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you weren't careful at all, I promise. You probably did well. It's just that reviewers recently haven't liked GOCE's edits, it seems. Sometimes they'll add really wordy stuff, other times they make it too much to-the-point for the given situation. I still trust you. Just saying. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Twofingered Typist has done a fantastic copyedit. The edits have actually addressed some of my concerns listed above; I'll strike the ones that I've noticed are fixed. Freikorp (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, Freikorp.Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: For an FA reviewer to criticise a GOCE editor for the voluntary work they did on an article is churlish. Bafflegab is/was one of the best. If I had a dollar for every so-called FA article that I have edited that was riddled with grammatical errors, I'd be wealthy. It works both ways. Do have a look at my suggestion on your talk page. Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is nasty. I didn't think there'd be nearly this many dead references. That's like a sixth of all the refs in here, and something I surely would've fixed if I hadn't received such a quick review. A visit from InternetArchiveBot would be extremely helpful. I'm now considering having you fail this for now and we can redo this once the links are fixed. That's a project for a weekend when I'm not extremely busy. I'll let you know when I come to a decision...won't be more than two days on that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have nothing to do with this, but just a heads up a GA article can have dead references. It's not mandatory for all the links to be alive. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the problem is that there are twenty. I can blitz through these pretty quickly after school, given that tomorrow's Friday. I need to restrain myself now so I can finish my Algebra homework and watch the Pens win! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw[edit]

Freikorp, I have changed my mind. Please fail this for now, I will let you know when I renominate. I should focus on your review and nothing more on Wikipedia currently...or at least on nominations with more hope than this one. (It's got plenty of hope, but I'm busy as of late so a solo nomination is probably not in the cards for me right now.) dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I understand. Freikorp (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]