Talk:My Delirium

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:My Delirium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have begun to review the article. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This article looks good. It's well-written, the references check out, coverage seems to be ok, no neutrality issues, no edit wars, has appropriate pics, etc. Second Opinion request is because this is my first GA review, so I just want to be sure. Thanks. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi shirulashem. I'm sorry I don't have time right now for a thorough review and intricate details on how the article can satisfy the GA criteria. However, I've quickly skimmed over the article, and I found a few issues. Mainly, the prose could be better. The structure of some of the sentences is odd, and the sections don't flow into each other very well. Also, I see very little information actually relating to the writing process in that section. Where and when was the song written/recorded? The second paragraph in that section seems like it doesn't belong, and it may not belong in the article at all.

I can't see where the genres in the infobox are coming from. It looks like they don't have a cited source, and they're going to need at least two or three total. That could possibly be included in a musical and lyrical style section. Also, all the "#" symbols should just be shown as "number".

I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see if it meets all the criteria there. If you feel it does after the issues I addressed are taken care of, feel free to pass the article. Right now, though, I think it should be put on hold, as there are some major issues. Don't hesitate to ask for even another opinion as well, possibly from someone who has time to provide a more thorough analysis. I hope my quick review helped. Good luck! Timmeh 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Timmeh. The genres are relics from before I started working on the article, I'll look for sources now. The use of '#' instead of number has been fixed. As for the prose, I'll run through it again and look for a copyeditor. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I hope you're not taking offense from my criticisms. I'm sure you're a great article writer, and I admit I may be a bit overly idealistic. That's another reason I suggested another opinion, as shirulashem's opinion and mine differed so much. Anyway, let me know when you're finished working on it and I'll take another look to see if I can find anything else that needs fixing. Timmeh 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Barring contacting Ladyhawke herself, I cannot find any more information on where and when this song was written. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, just include as much as you have, and that will be fine. Timmeh 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Status: Waiting for this issue to be addressed regarding the second paragraph. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph moved to the critical reception section. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article?

I stumbled across this one, and had a quick look over it; at first glance it appeared OK-ish. I then spent a few hours adding the sound clip. Now, I've had a closer look, and I have grave concerns over the referencing.

• LADYHAWKE On Myspace [1]

No way, not a reliable source

• thesixtyone - a music adventure [2]

Looks like a primary source - like a blog anyone can edit?

• Ladyhawke - ClashMusic.com Q&A, Clashmusic.com [3]

I don't see how this asserts that ""My Delirium" was written by Ladyhawke, alongside Hannah Robinson and Pascal Gabriel, both of whom Ladyhawke worked with on her previous singles". I see no mention of "Hannah Robinson", and all it says about Pascal Gabriel is that he is from Belgium

• Ladyhawke ¦ media ¦ triple j [4]

This just has one short para, and it looks like a 'myspace'-type site. Has the link changed? It certainly doesn't assert the facts stated (at present)

• Atnikov, Nathan (1 May, 2008). "Ladyhawke Review". ARTISTdirect, Inc.. [5]

Well, for a start, this is a tertiary source; you should not cite this, but instead you should find where the info comes from. Secondly, it is a site selling the record, therefore hardly an independent reliable source. Thirdly, re, "Some reviewers have related certain lyrics to Ladyhawke's experience with Asperger syndrome" - some? how many? where is there any other mention of this?

• Brown, Pip ModularPeople Ladyhawke [6]

This seems to redirect to Ladyhawkes own website, so I can only surmise that it is a primary source; it certainly doesn't confirm the quotation given

• Diu, Nisha Lilia (27 February, 2009). "Ladyhawke: flying high". The Daily Telegraph. [7]

Finally, a reliable source. So this is where the facts should come from. It discusses aspie's too. It does, however, only have a single sentence about this single - so I'm starting to get worried about 'significant coverage' at this stage...

• LADYHAWKE FOR CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE [8]

a) not RS, b) It says "This is clearly* a Christmas Number One" - and the * at the bottom says, "* Not remotely". This is terrible, gross misrepresentation of the facts.

• "My Delirium". Popjustice Ltd.. [9]

I've no idea why the second link (to this blog) is here, either.

• Balls, David "Ladyhawke: 'My Delirium'". Retrieved on 17 April 2009

Who is this Mr. Balls? Is he a reliable source? I wonder...from a quick google, he does appear to have written rather a lot about this band, on various forums

...and, at this point, I will stop; I don't expect you'll be very happy with my review thus far, and therefore further work on my part would be futile, I think. good luck with it; I'm truly sorry that I could not bring happier news, and if I can help in any way in the future, please let me know.  Chzz  ►  02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• LADYHAWKE On Myspace [10]

Given that it is the artists 'official' Myspace page, I was assuming it would be acceptable for sourcing an uncontroversial claim.

• thesixtyone - a music adventure [11]

I can't see any option to edit - maybe WP:RSN should hear about it.

• Ladyhawke - ClashMusic.com Q&A, Clashmusic.com [12]

I think I committed a secondary citation there, I'll look around to see what it was.

• Ladyhawke ¦ media ¦ triple j [13]

Did you see the audio clip? Triple J is a fairly noteworthy station, and hardly myspace.

• Atnikov, Nathan (1 May, 2008). "Ladyhawke Review". ARTISTdirect, Inc.. [14]

Firstly, I'm aware that the second part is a copy, but as far as I can tell the first section is primary. Secondly, for a site that is meant to be 'selling' the single, I would hardly say that having the most negative review around is a good way of doing it. Could've been copied from print media, but I'd have to spend some time searching.

• Brown, Pip ModularPeople Ladyhawke [15]

This used to be an interview with her, I'll look around for it's current locale.

• LADYHAWKE FOR CHRISTMAS NUMBER ONE [16]

My bad, the other link to the blog must've thrown me off.

• Balls, David "Ladyhawke: 'My Delirium'". Retrieved on 17 April 2009

Considering this Mr. Balls uses the title 'Music Reporter', I can only guess at that he reports on Ladyhawke along with several other bands/musicians. As for his reliability, I'd say that it would be the same as that of Digital Spy.

Thanks for the feedback. Could you leave me your replies so that I know what actions I need to do? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much as stated above; I just don't see significant coverage in reliable sources, and specifically per GA criteria, I don't think that it currently "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements".

Re. thesixtyone, note that their front page [17] says "thesixtyone democratizes music culture; artists submit their work, but rather than allowing a stuffy suit to decide what's cool, the listeners do." - thus, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

Re. abc, yes, I did miss the audio clip - I didn't realize that that was being referenced; that might be OK then.

The other parts - as I said before; there are a large number of uncited facts. I only checked half the refs; the rest need checking out similarly, to see if they are valid.

From a quick look at them, I see a BBC Blog by 'Frazier McAlpine' - but I can't see anything much to prove that his blog is in any way an official BBC pronouncement; I think that it needs to be more clear that these are opinions - perhaps quoting them. For example it says "describing "My Delirium" as "a good pop song"" - and the source actually says "Still, a good pop song is a good pop song, no matter how grumpily delivered" - which isn't really the same thing, so there is danger here of interpretation of the quote (ie WP:RS).

Most of the remainder is stats, and that is probably largely OK - although I'd be concerned that not all the stats are sourced (again, per GA criteria) - for example, it says that "charted higher than both "Paris is Burning" and "Dusk Till Dawn" on the UK, Australian, and New Zealand charts" - but the ref (at the end of that section) is chartstats, which says that it reached the same position as "Paris is Burning" (no. 78) - but I'm not sure which countries stats this refers to anyway. It goes on to say that "The next week it rose 44 places to number 75 with two weeks until its physical release" - with that same ref - but the ref does not appear to give that information.

The 'covers' part says that "Ladytron revealed they had recorded a cover of the song" - and again, I don't think that the source really says that; in fact, it says "No release date has yet been given for the cover" - hence (without other sources) it seems like a tabloid rumour of something that might happen (WP:CRYSTAL). Looking at that further, I see that the proposed album "Light & Darkness" also mentions it, with a different source ref, this one - and that says;

Ladyhawke [...] said that Aguilera has yet to contact her about the song."I know nothing about it...

Thus it does sound very speculative.

 Chzz  ►  21:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, still looking for a source to give the genre of the song given your objections. In regards to the stats, there must've been some confusion and the links got disassociated from the correct source. Chartstats.com is for UK charts, and I had avoided putting six citations on the end of the sentence. I can collate all the links and do so, however. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this page lists the highest positions for all her songs on the UK chart, which clearly shows "My Delirium" reaching top, I'll get the refs for Australia and NZ. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK then. I just removed the youtube link, because I'm assuming that is a copyrighted video? Apart from that...well, I still have concerns over referencing. For example, there remain references to ladyhawkemusic.com. I also think that the "Christina Aguilera" thing should go, because it's so speculative - unless it could be backed up with a better source, of course. A passing mention of this possible record in digitalspy isn't enough to 'prove' that she'll do the song, in my opinion.  Chzz  ►  13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the YouTube link – I see no need to remove it, since the video seems to be published from Ladyhawke's official account and shouldn't be a copyright infringement. WP:EL states that linking to non-infinging content is acceptable. Quibik (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Quibik. I considered this during the WP:RGA, and left in the link because the material that was linked to most likely does not "violate its creator's copyright," since the Youtube clip is on the official YouTube channel of the artist. -shirulashem^(talk) 14:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I had removed the Christina Aguilera thing before, it has been readded by another editor. The links to Ladyhawkemusic are, in my view, acceptable. It is being used to source things that Ladyhawke herself has written about the song. WP:PRIMARY in mind, if the writer of a song say they wrote it at home, then it's likely that they did. If the writer says something was their inspiration for the song, it probably was. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:My Delirium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Reassessor: Till I Go Home

Lead

• Lead is inappropriate, there is insufficient text and does not fully address main aspects of the topic.
• 'Musician' - perhaps change it to 'singer'?
• "The third track on Ladyhawke's eponymous debut album" - do you mean third single?
• "sold over 70,000 copies in Australia" - first you should discuss the chart performance, then sales/certifications.
• "peaked at number 9 on the New Zealand Music Charts" - '9' is unacceptable, it should be a word not number. 'New Zealand Music Charts'; this is unclear. What music chart; album chart? Singles chart?

Background and writing

• Looks good

Composition

• The article needs a composition section.

Critical reception

• "In its review, Allmusic said the song..." - surely someone with a name reviewed it, Allmusic itself did not.

Music video

• "The music video for "My Delirium" was directed by Benji Davies and Jim Field, known as Frater." - who is known as Frater, Benji or Field?
• When was the video directed, and where was it directed?
• Red links which need either fixing or removing.

Use in the media is a bunch of unsourced trivia, remove it.

Charts

• Per typical certifications tables, this is unacceptable. See this for a good quality example.

Track listing

• Which release version was this? UK? New Zealand? Not specified.

References

• Ref 22 is dead.
• Refs 27 and 28 are bare, fix them. A link to the site is not enough, they need the title, publisher and access date.

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• It's been seven days and there still has been no major improvement to the article. Sorry but that's a delist. The article can be re-nominated at any time but these issues should be addressed. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Delirium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091220204007/http://uk.faqs.ign.com/articles/101/1015048p1.html to http://uk.faqs.ign.com/articles/101/1015048p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)