Talk:Rocks and Honey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rocks and Honey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll perform the GA review. When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA
A good article is—
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

Lead

  • The lead seems a bit light on content given the topics covered in the article. Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarize all the points in the article. There isn't anything in the lead about the album title, much about the songs on the album. I'd recommend beefing up the lead a bit with some more material from the article. More to come. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 01:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two track titles to the lead ("What You Need From Me" and "This Is Gonna Hurt"), and used them to link to the information about the album title and the news of an upcoming second single. As well as that, there's information about the Eurovision Song Contest, the songs being written by songwriters in Nashville and a quick overview of the chart success and how the album was received by music critics. Do you think this is enough now (though I've only added the album title and second single info to the lead)? I was wondering if you could suggest anything specific that could be expanded on or if there's anything specific that could still be added if it's not acceptable now. Thanks for all your help. Bonnietylersave (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That should suffice for GA purposes. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! I expect the final few suggestions will take longer to adjust, but hopefully soon. Bonnietylersave (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content

  • There are some tense agreement issues in this section and the entire article should be checked. Are you writing in past or present tense? I think it's past tense but not sure. This should be cleaned up.
 Done I've read through the entire article and corrected any tense issues. The article is now completely written in past tense... apart from the information about "This Is Gonna Hurt" being the next single, because it hasn't come out yet. I will be sure to change that to "came out on..." once it is released, though. Bonnietylersave (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Single

  • Whether it is still going to be released as a single is currently unknown. If the album was released in March 2013 why is it still not know whether "All I ever wanted" is the first single? I think this may need to be updated. I think the lead says "Believe in me" is the first single.
 Done I have just removed that. I have checked the revision history - that information was added by someone else and I don't know how I managed to miss it. "All I Ever Wanted" was never due to be the first single. But anyway, the information has been removed. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post Eurovision Promotion

  • A one sentence doesn't suffice for it's own section. There should be more information here or perhaps it can be rolled into the Tour section since the promotion is referenced in that section anyway. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've had to take that out; the section was added when Tyler was due to be visiting France to promote the album, and it was expected that it would garner some success in the charts or something. Despite that, it didn't chart in France and she only appeared on some radio shows and a TV show leaving the "post Eurovision promotion" information pretty insignificant. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and obviously it's left the track list and image file too close together and made it look messy. I'll try to add more information beneath the "Bonnie Tyler in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013" ASAP. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

  • Is there a reference for this section?
 Done Got a link to Allmusic. Bonnietylersave (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • I see you use YouTube and Twitter as Refs. There are issues with using these sites as reliable references. I think your use of Twitter is ok though I wouldn't add any more "tweets" as the article is expanded. YouTube is more of a concern for me. You use 9 different links, which is a lot for an article with 52 refs total. Often YouTube material is copyright-protected. I would try and find print material to replace these links if possible. See WP:TWITTER, WP:COPYLINK and WP:YT
I have removed five of them that have statements that may stand alone. What's left are recordings of radio interviews. The issue here is that the BBC save all of their broadcast recordings for seven days and then delete them. The recordings on YouTube must have been used to preserve these interviews. In some cases the BBC will save these interviews themselves, but for most I think these interviews are irreplaceable. As a fan of Bonnie Tyler, I'd know if the information in these interviews were documented somewhere so I'm afraid there's little I can do about a few of them... Bonnietylersave (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what I could do is list all of the YouTube links and determine whether they are replaceable on here. This would help make it clear to other reviewers, should anyone else choose to contribute to this (or even read this in the future).
    • Ref #9 - interview with Jo Good. Cannot be replaced: [1] The clip is five minutes, but the whole interview was over 30 minutes. Some of the content that comes from this interview is not covered in the five minute clip.
      • Ref #13 - interview with Roy Noble. Cannot be replaced: [2] Though BBC Radio episodes usually keep a list of all songs played on a show, the link does not include the track "What You Need From Me", probably because it was played from a promo CD or something.
      • Ref #14 - Bonnie Tyler - Live ZDF Willkommen 2013 - 31dec 2012. Cannot be replaced, there is no documented proof of Tyler's appearance on this TV show.
      • Ref #15 - Bonnie Tyler on Wilkommen Bei Carmen Nebel. Cannot be replaced, same as above.
      • Ref #19 - Melissa Bollea performing her song "Rocks and Honey". Cannot be replaced, video footage is the only proof of her offering Tyler the track... though this information could always be deleted, it's not that significant.
      • Ref #22 - Beau Davidson music video for "All I Ever Wanted". Can be replaced. A link to his Wikipedia page should suffice.
      • Ref #28 - Bonnie performing "Believe in Me" on Terry Wogan's radio show. Can be replaced. [3] that link will do.
I will sort through these references tomorrow. Bonnietylersave (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted out the two that can definitely be replaced or deleted. I await your opinion on what to do about the others. Bonnietylersave (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good thank you for working on that. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've fixed that. The YouTube references will take a little more time. Bonnietylersave (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • I see that you've done some work, I'm going to provide all my recommendations and then go back and strike the ones you've fixed.
  • I think the article is close to GA but not quite there yet:
  • In Criterion 1a you have some tense agreement issues that should be cleared up to meet this criterion.
  • In Criterion 1b the lead should be expanded a bit to encompass all aspects of the article in a summary fashion.
  • In Criterion 2a is there a source for the Personnel section?
  • In Criterion 2b the sources should be reliable and I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on YouTube and it's reliability issues. We can discuss this concern as I'm sure there are GAs that use YouTube links and I'm not 100% opposed to their use, I just want to see them used judiciously and only when other - more reliable and not possible copyrighted - options are unavailable.
  • I will hold the article now and wait for your replies. I see that you're actively working on it so we should be able to wrap this up fairly quickly. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel as though the article has been improved and meets the GA Criteria. I will pass it at this point. Best of luck in your endeavors to improve Bonnie Tyler's pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rocks_and_Honey&oldid=1210089593"