Talk:5,6,7,8/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox[edit]

  • Relase date: "November 1997" → Source?
    • In background section.  — Calvin999 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Lead[edit]

  • Should metnion Robert Copsey
You have more than one review, seems relevant since he has a different opinion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, it will make it too long and a complete repetition of what's below.  — Calvin999 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number one in Australia, 2 in New Zealand and Belgium should be mentioned as well.
    • It's about a British subject, adding 3 more charts is making the lead unnecessarily too long. This is only a summary.  — Calvin999
So what? British artists can only make it in Britain? while American singers only in the US? Make no sense. I agree since they are British it is important to mention their home country, however, if they are successful elsewhere should be mentioned as well. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kept it to UK only on purpose, because otherwise the lead will be bigger than some of the sections beneath it, it only needs to be a summary, not a complete repetition of what's below.  — Calvin999 18:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying to put all the the charts just two more. It was very successful there and a reader should not have to read the entire article to find such information. Besides this, it will help one became more interested an engaged with the article.
The lead is already too long for an article of this size, I'm not adding more. It's not not fillfiling any criteria.  — Calvin999 21:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has 4 lines and a quarter of a fifth, pretty sure you can have a full fith line withouth it becoming to big. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should mention a quick summary of the video*

 Done

  • Release date also here. and where it was released?
    • Adding date. I can't find exact dates for all territories.  — Calvin999 09:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need, one will be enough. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Background and composition[edit]

  • As stated below Discogs sources.

What is not done?  — Calvin999 21:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still have Discogs sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and I added the IDs, you replied to it below.  — Calvin999 21:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use cite AV media with the IDs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.  — Calvin999 08:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Reception[edit]

  • No more reviews, that has to one of the harshest reviews I ever read!
  • Robert Copsey review I would move it to the top, after the NME one
  • After that reviews in one paragraph and other would be for the commercial section. Seems more logical, however, I knew what you were trying to do there.
    • The second review is chart related.  — Calvin999 09:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a review, you can divide things one for the charts and other its the reviewer opinion regarding the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But his comments about the song are linked to it's chart performance in his opinion, hence why I put it there.  — Calvin999 18:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Promotion[edit]

  • The official music video has achieved 13.6 million views on YouTube as of May 2017. → this is not relevant if it had a billion views sure.
    • More views makes it more relevant? This is Steps most watched video. It's fine to include views.  — Calvin999
As i'm not familiarized with the subject I had no idea. Fine then. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who directed the video can you find?
    • No, this is 20 years old now.  — Calvin999
Get it.
  • Perhaps change the title of this to "Music Video and promotion"?
    • Music video is promotion.  — Calvin999 09:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but promotion can be a lot of things, its a derivative title if you use music video you are being more specetific. All Ga's and FA's article have such section.
Yes, music video and live performances = Promotion. And FA's and most GA's have a lot more info available than this song, so usually have separate sections anyway.  — Calvin999 18:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point.

 Done

Formats and track listings[edit]

  • Discogs ot a reliable source, I wouldn't use. Try to find in it however, the identification number.
    • I've added IDs for the record labels, but I've lifted the credits from the images of the booklets, so they are reliable as they can be checked on it.  — Calvin999 08:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Credits and personnel[edit]

  • Fine

Charts[edit]

  • Fine

Certifications[edit]

  • Fine

References[edit]

  • First reference as an author
  • australian-charts.com. → Hung Medien

 Done

External links[edit]

  • Fine

Overall GA review[edit]

  • On hold for seven days.
  • I'm not sure regarding this matter but shouldn't you add this to pop wikiproject as well? Since the song it is techno pop. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

@Calvin999: should we call a third party to decide upon our little disagremmend in the lead? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, you're the reviewer.  — Calvin999 16:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We will wave to wait now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion[edit]

So I and the nominator seem to have a little disagreement towards the information the lead should contain. I claim that the information regarding the song topping the charts in Australia and Flanders is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead, however, the nominator strongly believes that adding that will make the lead "bigger than some of the sections beneath it" and that it's not fulfilling any criteria. I would like a second opinion towards this issue down below. Thank You MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would imagine that a brief line about the song's commercial performance outside of UK markets would be appropriate; it could be a short sentence to prevent expanding the lead too much. Besides, the lead should contain information about the single as a whole, so only including the commercial performance of the song in UK markets can be interpreted as giving that part a little bit of undue weight. I noticed this especially since the lead goes into a rather in-depth take of peaks, streams, and certifications, which makes the absence of information on its commercial performance in other regions/countries even more apparent. Again, the sentence can be short, and just something along the lines of ("5,6,7,8" peaked in the top ten in Australia, Belgium, and New Zealand). Just wanted to add my opinion as this was tagged for a second opinion, and I have to agree with MarioSoulTruthFan on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had already done it, but it didn't really matter if I was up for it or not.  — Calvin999 08:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:5,6,7,8/GA1&oldid=792567396"