Jump to content

Talk:Doomsday Blue

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


Whole encyclopaedic content

[edit]

@Nascar9919 reverted an entry that briefly specified misconceptions around a phrase used in the song, namely "Avada Kedavra". Their reasoning was that the passage was "not particularly important to [the] article". I find this reasoning suspect, primarily because information does not come with a relevance requirement - only a requirement that it be linked in some way to the article. Since the linguistics community has long debated the source of "Abracadabra", the term upon which the fictional "Avada Kedavra" is based, there is a significant amount of information on the subject - thus it is appropriate to link this information and present it wherever a related subject is mentioned.

There is also the manner in which the information is initially presented. The passage "The song's lyrics feature numerous 'spells', including the incantation 'Avada Kedavra', a phrase popularised by the Harry Potter franchise..." presents the phrase as genuine, real, and uncontroversially accepted as legitimate. In fact, it is anything but - hence, the passage could be construed as knowingly presenting false information. Since this is not expanded on within the linked article (being "Magic in Harry Potter"), a reader may never realise that the phrase is entirely fictional. This is particularly important for younger readers, or readers who speak English as a second language or who have translated the article.

I strongly advocate for the restoration of at least some mention that the phrase is related to a linguistics controversy, otherwise it can be considered incomplete encyclopaedic content. It is not necessarily up to editors what information is "relevant" to an article, only that it is related in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R0tekatze (talkcontribs) 14:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 06:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Arconning (talk · contribs) 06:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this, comments will probably be finished in the next 72 hours! Love this song, CROWN THE WITCH!! Arconning (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll probably get to your comments in a few hours. It's around midnight here and I probably need to head to bed... haha. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • tc) 07:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascar9919 Here are my comments! Hope they can be addressed :) Arconning (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nascar9919 Just waiting on earwig, will get back to you and hopefully pass! Arconning (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MoS

[edit]

Infobox and lead

[edit]

Background and composition

[edit]

Music video and promotion

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]

Eurovision Song Contest

[edit]

Track listing, Charts, and Release history

[edit]
  • No issues on prose or MoS. Pass.

Images

[edit]
  • Images have proper licenses and are relevant to the article.

Refs

[edit]
  • Reference 4, if there aren't any other available sources use a primary references template. I suggest using Kiribati at the 2020 Summer Olympics as a guide when using this template.
  • References 51 and 52, same as reference 4 guideline.

Spotchecks

[edit]

Misc

[edit]
  • No ongoing edit war, broad and focus on the subject of the article, no other issues present.
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