Talk:Anywhere (Rita Ora song)

Anywhere (Rita Ora song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 28, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands certifications

Both Your Song and Anywhere were certified Platinum.

See: "https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFe-uTHKpG/?taken-by=ritaora"
And: "https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFT-Mgn4VX/?taken-by=ritaora"

She even went to say they were double platinum, but I think she meant it as 1+1 x platinum for both songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BUmbrella (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freek Heinen, brand manager for her label (Warner Music) in the Netherlands also confirmed: platinum for both! *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFlYIaBxsi/ *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same case of Balada (Gusttavo Lima song), the source uses Instagram to confirm the information, so it must be accepted in the same way. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FranklinG: No, it does not have to be accepted at all. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not and has never been a valid reason. Other pages may not be monitored as much, so users may have missed it being used as a source there, or the users there are just less discerning. That does not make it okay. (FranklinG, I hope you don't mind but I removed your extra two comments, which appeared to just be trying to correct the link you posted in your first comment. You could have just edited the first comment to begin with.) Ss112 16:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your example does not hold up anyway. The Gusttavo Lima article you linked uses http://musica.terra.com.br/na-holanda-gusttavo-lima-comemora-premio-e-posta-foto,28289ab75766a310VgnCLD200000bbcceb0aRCRD.html as a source for its Dutch certification. That's not a social media account. Ss112 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: I understand your point of view, but in both cases the source would be Twitter. NVPI does not publish updates for a long time, we can not limit information that is true just because it was posted on a social network, even more coming from an official profile. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FranklinG: WP:Verifiability, not truth. A bad source is not better than it not being there. I only use social media as a temporary source, but as you just said, the NVPI doesn't update for quite a while (and I don't think they have a current database anyway). There was also confusion about what Ora even meant in her posts (as highlighted by BUmbrella above). Quite often, artists and labels get presented with certification information or plaques a significant amount of time before the award database updates. Perhaps we just need to wait. Also, I find this attribution quite vague. Ora doesn't even mention the NVPI gave her the award, so we're assuming the NVPI is still the certifying body in the Netherlands and that they gave her the award. How do we know some other organisation didn't give her the award? Ss112 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like you found another source. Ss112 18:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: If Twitter is a bad source imagine a source that uses Twitter as a source, it is the same thing, there is no difference. Luckily a source was found that meets the guidelines. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: NVPI is the only organization linked to IFPI that certifies the recordings, only the database of them that is no longer updated. The sources are one linked to the others, it is not a work of interpretation, it is simple. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FranklinG: Yes, but Radio538 in this instance is verifying that she was presented with an award. They can embed Ora's post all they like; they are an organisation independent of Ora and the NVPI. There is a difference, and that difference comes from it being an independent secondary source and given oversight by an editor. I think you need to read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Also, I didn't say it was a "work of interpretation", it's a matter of attribution. Nobody is even saying in the original social media post that it's an official award. It's an assumption that it was given by NVPI because it's in the Netherlands. Other organisations not recognised by the IFPI could still give out their own awards, you know. It's not illegal for an organisation to make their own gold or platinum awards and give it to an artist. So there is still a degree of assumption that it's the NVPI written on the award she has. Not enough that I would remove it from the article, though, I'm just noting this could be a concern in cases like this. Ss112 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112:Hardly an artist knows the organization that certifies or mentions it. And if you see well there are VARIOUS articles that simply use a source that references Twitter as confirmation of the information. If Wikipedia had to wait for some source to comment on the truth of the information, we would have only half articles. Things do not work out so right here, we have to ponder and be malleable for things that are in the face. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FranklinG: That other articles use Twitter as a source does not make it okay. Those articles should have those references removed. Again, you're missing the widely held belief here that badly sourced information is not better than not having that information at all. Wikipedia uses secondary, reliable sources. If we ran on primary sources, we'd have articles on everything—we could then justify having an article on somebody's dog just because somebody set up an Instagram page for it saying that dog is the best in the world. Primary sources don't impartially verify the importance or notability of something, and are frequently unreliable for this reason and others. Please read WP:Primary sources. Ss112 19:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand what you say, I just read it, but we just can not be negligent. Each case is a case, and should be viewed individually based on similar ones. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should assess pages on a case-by-case basis, but relying on precedence in those cases is not really viewing them individually... Ss112 19:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not you find it ambiguous to use a source that evidences Twitter itself as confirmation being seen as a bad source ?! The source is only replicating a Twitter information, there is no nexus to limit this. *Fr@Πkl!nG* (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance, Radio538 is not merely repeating what Ora said in her Instagram posts, as they were the ones who presented her with the award in the first place. So they're reporting on it and then merely embedding her post there, not taking the information from it. Ss112 20:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anywhere (Rita Ora song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 08:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will get on with this right away! --K. Peake 08:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Replace hlist with bullet points per Template:Infobox song
WP:OVERLINK of Rita Ora under songwriter(s)
Why is [1] included in the infobox when those credits are sourced in the body?
WP:OVERLINK of all the producers, also Andrew Watt should be listed by his full name per this not being a track listing, unless his stage name is indeed Watt
Mention in the opening sentence that it is from her second studio album and move the single release part to the sentence after writers/producers
[2] should not be in the lead especially when that is already sourced in the body
"Nick Gale, and its producers" → "Nick Gale and its producers"
""Anywhere" is a" → "It is a"
The above sentence feels like WP:SEAOFBLUE; unlink love song to help this
""Anywhere" reached the top ten in fifteen countries," → "the song reached the top 10 in 15 countries," per MOS:NUM and you need to write out more of these than the UK in the body
"number two (making it Ora's eleventh UK top-ten" → "number two, becoming Ora's eleventh UK top-10" per above
Mention that double platinum was in the UK and write this out in the body too
"The music video," → "An accompanying music video," with the wikilink
Remove overly obvious wikilink on New York City
Add notable live performance(s) to the lead

Background and release

Remove the comma before "Lonely Together" and mention the year it was released
"on which she featured on," → "which she featured on," to avoid overusage of on
"Ora wrote "Anywhere" with" → "Ora co-wrote "Anywhere" with"
"away with you."" → "away with you"." per MOS:QUOTE
The first sentence of the second para should be simplified to mentioning the date and that it was for pre-order and the cover art shared
The November release date is not sourced for the remixes

Composition

Retitle to Composition and lyrics
Pipe breakdown to Breakdown (music) on the audio sample text
""Anywhere" is a" → "Musically, "Anywhere" is a"
Pipe choruses to Refrain
The tempo sentence should be in the first para instead; maybe the one after the beat?
Wikilink chord progression
"you're going through."" → "you're going through"." per MOS:QUOTE
"have experienced in 2017." → "had experienced in 2017."

Reception

Critical reception

Add the release year of "Super Trouper"
"is no higher compliment."" → "is no higher compliment"." per MOS:QUOTE
"it's on the dancefloor."" → "it's on the dancefloor"." per above

Commercial performance

"eleventh top ten single in the UK, and" → "11th top-10 single in the United Kingdom and" per MOS:NUM
Mention the double platinum certification and chart positions outside of the UK

Music video

Wikilink music video instead of the overly obvious New York City
You need a source stating it had received 300 million views and do not use the constantly updating YouTube
Img looks good!
Pipe Meatpacking District to Meatpacking District, Manhattan
Wikilink as knee-high boots per WP:PIPE
"top and bottom, and a" → "top and bottom and a" per British English
"MTV's Sam Prance" → "MTV UK's Sam Prance" with the pipe
"and "a high-fashion" → "and "like a high-fashion" per the source

Live performances

Wikilink BBC Radio 1 Teen Awards per MOS:LINK2SECT
"On 5 November," → "On 5 November 2017,"
Rather than having the dates in brackets, why not place "on" before each one and should there really be a comma before the last performance?
Remove wikilink on "Your Song"
Should Liam Payne really be in brackets?
Pipe 2018 Brit Awards to Brit Awards 2018

Track listings

Good

Credits and personnel

Why are Alesso, Watt and Sir Nolan written at the top when you have all their credits listed out below?

Charts

Weekly charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION
The Mexico position is not sourced

Year-end charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION and split the separate years into tables
Pipe Plötutíóindi to Music of Iceland

Certifications

See MOS:TABLECAPTION

References

Copyvio score looks great at 21.3%!!!!
Aple Music → Apple Music in the title of ref 2
Pipe Warner/Chappell Music to Warner Chappell Music on ref 5
Wikilink The Line of Best Fit on ref 8
Remove or replace ref 14 per WP:SELFPUB
Fully format ref 18 as an Entertainment Tonight citation
Musicnotes, Inc → Musicnotes.com on ref 19
Add url-access subscription to ref 20
Remove or replace ref 25 per WP:FORBES
Promo News → Promonews on ref 26
MTV → MTV UK on refs 29, 30 and 35 piping to MTV (British and Irish TV channel) on the first instance
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 33
Pipe Yahoo7 to Yahoo! Australia on ref 41
Cite YouTube as via instead on ref 44
WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on refs 58 and 67
TopHit should only be linked on ref 77, also change Tophit → TopHit on refs 86, 92, 103 and 107
Cite GfK Entertainment as publisher instead on ref 94, removing the other one'
Fix MOS:CAPS issues and cite Plötutíóindi as publisher instead on ref 97, piping to Music of Iceland
Remove SloTop50 from the title of ref 104
Why is OCC only in brackets on ref 114?

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; that went quickly! --K. Peake 10:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thank you for all the suggestions, I will be correcting these today. --Helptottt (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helptottt There is still some left; are you going over these now? --K. Peake 08:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I went through all the corrections. Helptottt (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helptottt I still take issue with ref 1 being in the lead for info sourced in the body, not enough chart positions written out in commercial and MTV UK needs to be piped as well as fixed on all refs. --K. Peake 21:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it! Helptottt (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helptottt I meant pipe MTV UK to MTV (British and Irish TV channel), also write out the other top 10 positions in commercial too and you need citations for any one mentioned. --K. Peake 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass now, well done for you patience and virtue to listen! --K. Peake 21:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your suggestions were great! Helptottt (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]