Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Santa Claus Lane/1

Santa Claus Lane[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Endorse fail per consensus and comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has now failed GAN twice now, with both reviewers citing lack of critical reviews and criterion 3a as the reason. Criterion 3a requires that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic", and since there are hardly any notable reviews available from online or print sources, critical reception isn't a main aspect of this album. The note for this criterion at WP:GA? even states, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." This article has all of the content that is available as of now and probably all that will ever be available and meets all other GA criteria as all other issues pertaining to the criteria have been addressed, so I do not understand why this shouldn't be listed.

I have tried to explain to both of the editors who GA reviewed this that "major aspects" is not the same as "comprehensiveness" (and I certainly don't plan to nominate this for FA), but—with as much respect as possible to the reviewers—my commentary went largely ignored and circled back to "there's not enough reviews". I went to the resource WikiProject, an editor provided me with a PDF of a lot of articles about the album; however, most of them were simply passing mentions and the only review in the batch was clearly written by a child. As much as I and others would like more critical reception to be added, you can't add what doesn't exist.

As it has failed twice now for the same reason (and with not much progress trying to discuss with both reviewers), I am taking this to community reassessment. –Chase (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support the listing of this article as per the reasons stated by Chasewc. It is true that original reseatch and fancrufty reviews cannot simply be included in an article as this grossly violates WP policy. Saying this, the article covers well on the other aspects that this deserves to be included as a GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't say too much here, I think I've made my thoughts clear at Talk:Santa Claus Lane/GA2. Basically, I don't think that the article is broad enough. My argument (one of them anyway) is that just because we can't find reviews on the internet, doesn't mean they don't exist. I realise that GA doesn't require comprehensiveness, and I wasn't asking for that at any point. I'd also like to point out that I didn't ignore your arguments Chasewc91, I just disagreed with you. I never expected you to use a fan review or original research.--Beloved Freak 18:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a look on Google archives, and while I didn't find any in-depth reviews, there were a few short reviews or mentions about the album in several articles. The websites probably wouldn't be considered too reliable, but I guess since it's a review, and not factual information, we can be a little less restricting as to what we consider reliable. See here and here. If you find several more articles like these, I suppose you could write a solid paragraph on critical reception, no matter how flimsy it may seem. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MousePlanet is not a reliable source; Village Voice is but the article quotes Amazon.com customer reviews which aren't reliable. And we have to use reliable sources for even the reviews. If we just use some random review from a random music blog, that won't work, because more than likely it's by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about. –Chase (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the rules when it comes to reliable sources; I was just unsure of MousePlanet since it came up on the news results and thought I might suggest it. With the Village Voice article, you could use "half of it very rocking, with one certified Spector-tribute genius track (written-produced by Charlie Midnight), "When the Snow Comes Down in Tinseltown." It's actually one of the best half-original rock-Xmas sets ever.", which I believe was written by the author himself. There does seem to be a whole collection of reviews on the archives but unfortunately they charge for access. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Currently, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG because it doesn't contain references from "multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". One of these can be the Village Voice article mentioned above, but at least one more source with "significant coverage" of the album is required as well. Once that changes, I'll reevaluate. liquidluck✽talk 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An album from a notable artist clearly meets WP:NALBUM. –Chase (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the opening sentence of WP:NALBUM reads, "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." liquidluck✽talk 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also goes on to state: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This is the debut album from a rather notable musician, clearly it meets criteria. –Chase (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key words there are "must" and "may". "officially released albums may have sufficient notability", but they "must meet the basic criteria". I'm sure the subject is notable, the article just has to demonstrate it; common sense isn't good enough for GA status. liquidluck✽talk 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. Community GAR does not exist to discuss notability or WP:NALBUM. We are are here to discuss whether the article meets the GA criteria, nothing more, nothing less. If there are broadness issues, these need to be articulated clearly. If there are sourcing issues, these should not be confused with notability. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose promotion at this point. Chasewc91, there do appear to be reviews out there. Most of them are behind paywalls online, but they're still there. The google hits give a date and a source, so you can check some of them out potentially through a local library, or ask other Duff article editors if they can help with that, esp. if you are not in the US (where most reviews appear to have occurred). The first part of the Village Voice review should at least be cited. Obviously at GA we don't need every review cited. Just a few points from three or so would be enough. You've indicated that MousePlanet is not reliable, so i'll take your word for that, but the review there also alerts you to some potential information about some tracks that might be worth following up in the text using other sources including liner notes (covering songs by Wham, and Paul McCartney in particular). In fact, it is bizarre that these are not specifically mentioned in the "Composition" section, when that same section contains the identities of production staff no one has ever heard of. So: still a couple of things to resolve i think. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per hamiltonstone. In addition to your local library, try Google News and Google Books. Also:
- Section "Track listing" needs citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section "Personnel" needs citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of track listings requiring a source. Will add sources to the personnel section though. Furthermore, Google News and Google Books have been used and I had a fellow editor look through a print news archive with ~~no results~~ only passing mentions and one review that was clearly written by a child. Hamiltonstone, you say there are reviews behind paywalls but you do not provide any. That is not particularly helpful. –Chase (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having some browser problems at present but there should be one in this basket of reviews. I think I used Google News - advanced search - archive - <"Santa Clause Lane" Duff> search term - then confined examination to late 2002 and 2003. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, i've just worked out there are whole books ( ise the term loosely) published about Hilary Duff. I imagine some are of dubious and hagiographic nature, but none of them have been cited at all. Surely they aren't all writing 100+ pages about Duff and not mentioning her first studio album? What about page 39 of Hilary Duff: A Not-So-Typical Teen (found from snippet view in Google Books) - is there anything there? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! Do you happen to know where I could find someone with access to these paid reviews? In regards to the books, I have come across several of these books at my local library in the past - many of them only make passing mention to this album. Sigh! The Not-So-Typical Teen book: page 39 isn't viewable for me, but the title for the chapter that begins on the page prior: "Saving the World and Other Secret Agent Tricks", seems to be in reference to Duff's 2003 film Agent Cody Banks and not this album. –Chase (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hamiltonstone, the liner notes do not specifically say that songs by Paul McCartney and Wham were covered. Therefore such content can not be added as this will violate WP:OR. –Chase (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the source for the "writer" information in the track listing? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The liner notes simply say the songs were written by whoever they were written by. To use that and come up with the assumption that that is the same song (even though it's obvious) is WP:OR. –Chase (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ref name="Rosen">{{cite journal|last=Rosen|first=Craig|date=January 31, 2004|title=Hilary Duff: A Performer's Metamorphosis|journal=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=Nielsen Business Media, Inc.|volume=116|issue=5|pages=10–14|issn=0006-2510}}</ref> should have a URL to make it easier to check that the citation - and an accessdate= to go with the URL. If you can't find any other URL, use books.google --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When Buena Vista Records stops selling the album, <ref name="linernotes">2002. ''Santa Claus Lane'' (album liner notes). Buena Vista Records.</ref> you'll have no evidence. I suggest adding the isbn. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Amazon citations for the tracks on "Santa Claus Lane: Hilary Duff: Music" and "Santa Claus Lane [Extra Tracks]: Hilary Duff: Music" will vanish as soon as Amazon stops sell these. The pages from Allmusic will be more secure - original tracks and with bonus track. If you can add isbn as well ... --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Composition" appears to have nothing that also appears on " Track listing". --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you've resolved hamiltonstone's concerns about lack of reviews, run the Link checker to check that none of its URLs has not died (the checker does all in one hit) and that all required parameters of the citation are present, and the DAB checker to checks disambiguation pages. You should keep these in your toolbox, as you will be required to use these tools before asking for a GA review. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then check the lead when the rest is stable. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My main thing is the someone "meat" of the article really doesn't even talk about the album, or doesn't even need to be included. The background just give career information, the composition section can be inferred from the track listing. Release could be in a release history, and as little chart performance/reception, it could in included as prose in the charts section. Then the reception is basically no reviews besides the Amazon.com editorial. Candyo32 (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Candyo32 summed up what I think pretty well, and there wasn't even an attempt to use the Village Voice article that I suggested (not that I took it personally, but instead of using it, it was just ignored). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fail. There is a clear consensus at this GAR, as in the GAN review, that more needs to be done before this article meets the GA criteria, and I believe this GAR can be closed on that basis. It might not be easy to address the issues raised - and it may involve some legwork to find print sources, given that there was less online back in 2002 (and online archives are often not free).

However, positive suggestions and comments have been made. Let me add a few of my own.

The article should mention that the title track also appears in the soundtrack of The Santa Clause 2 - it may also be worth noting that it featured in the compilation Songs to Celebrate 25 Days of Christmas (indicating some longevity in Disney's eyes at least). There might also be reviews of these works which mention the song.
The fact that Amazon.com customer reviews are not reliable sources for Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether the Village Voice review is a reliable source. RSS can quote Amazon.com if they want to. In this case the customer reviews are being quoted to illustrate the diverse opinion on the quality of Duff's singing in the album. It is perfectly possible to refer to this, as long as we attribute it to the Village Voice, and do not add additional interpretation. That is quite different from treating the customer reviews themselves as secondary source material. (They are more like primary sources, which the RSS has used.)
I wouldn't immediately rule out MousePlanet.com as a reliable source. It is a ten year old incorporated company, independent of Disney, employing editors, copy editors and staff writers (at least part time), with clear legal status (including disclaimers, privacy policy etc.). As far as I can tell, WP:RS/N hasn't expressed a view. On the other hand, the review itself is not particularly convincing: the prose is rocky, including misspellings of "Claus" and phrases such as "her voice shows quite a bit of growth when compared to the rest of the songs in this holiday CD" (!)
The New York Times has an article which mentions in passing "few grown-up fans — except for parents — were paying attention in 2002, when she released her first CD". The relative lack of attention may explain to the reader (and future GAN reviewers) why there is not much critical commentary.

I hope some of the above help at least. Geometry guy 17:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]