Talk:Lacrymosa (song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quick failing this article. Obviously not even close to GA material. Very premature.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article isn't close to GA material what about this? This? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.81.147 (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles can obviously be improved, but are superior in quality to this article. If you would like specific reasons, I'll be happy to demonstrate blatant issues.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me. 77.29.81.20 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Two main issues. Prose are very weak. The wording and grammar is poor throughout the entire article. Aside from that, the prose are far from good, which is what we need for GA. Examples - "It is the seventh track on their second studio album, The Open Door (2006), and was used in a promotional trailer for the album." What does this mean? Trailer? What footage is shown? "throughout the song. The song" Repeated basic wording in a close proximity. "one of the "most memorable track" Obvious issue. "but was not included because of its sound" What does that mean? As a reader, how am I to understand why it wasn't used in the movie from that? "The song peaked on number forty-three on iTunes Alternative Music Chart due to its digital downloads. It was part of the setlist for the promotion of the album" iTunes is not an official music chart, therefore mot meriting mention anywhere in the article. These are just in the small lead. The second main issue is its content; the article does not have sufficient coverage for the song. Judging from this search, there are tons of reviews, critical analysis and general information that can be easily added to the page. When rivaled against our GAs nowadays, when we are stricter that ever, I'm afraid that a poorly written short on content article can not be passed. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it big enough now?My love is love (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course more sourced and helpful content is always warranted, however the references are all really poorly formatted. No accessdates, works and publishers are poorly formatted, no dates of select few. Those still need a lot of work. I also have yet to review the prose, which I have not looked into yet.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are accessdates, publishers and works now, but some of the dates for the refs are not mentioned in the external link. How should we know which is the date? And after finishing that will you start the review of the article? 77.29.83.60 (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start the review please. 77.29.80.241 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask, are you related to "My Love Is Love"? Also, I'm sorry it doesn't work like that. You must re-nominate it at the main page as was done the first time, and wait for someone to review it. I can serve as a guide only from here on. Unfortunately, the article is still not ready. Many sources are still not properly formatted (missing some sort of field) and many are not considered highly reliable (Blabbermouth.net, Whiplash.net, Rocknworld.com etc). Prose still need work.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not and I don't know why you ask that? However I'll remove those and I'll try to properly formate the refs. 77.29.83.50 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that because you are both fairly new here, and both commenting on a page that you would not find unless familiar with the article, hence I think you are one in the same. Doesn't matter however, as I told you, you must once again repeat the GAN process.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you fail this article? You said that it should be renominated. 77.29.80.247 (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are being dishonest regarding your account, and because you posted me as the reviewer, which I did not agree to.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the previous comment, I clear my history very often so that's why it looks like it isn't posted from me, and I posted you as a reviewer because I don't know how not to post you as a reviewer because I'm new here lol. Will you tell me the hon not to post you as a reviewer? My love is love (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You follow the instructions at the nomination page, its pretty simple. I've already done it for you, although I warn you it will likely not pass in its current state.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love, I know you mean well, but slow down, please. Take some time, work carefully, make it right. I've had to go behind you several times now and fix spelling and various other mistakes. You are doing great work in expanding these Evanescence articles to points I never thought they would reach, and I really appreciate that effort. Nathan, you also meant well, but don't nom for other people, and don't sign for them either. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]