Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:17, 16 July 2010 [1].

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...

I've worked on the article for many months, since around July or August of last year. The subject is a song by Kelly Clarkson, the first winner of American Idol, but don't let that put you off! It's a very nice song (honest -- you can even play a clip to hear for yourself), and it has a bit of a "you stole this" story behind it. I'm confident the article meets all four FA criteria. Thanks for reviewing, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There's no dabs and there are three dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing these to my attention :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the the first link, I don't know if its a reliable source. For the second link, one can hope that it will be corrected or something. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well if someone else can tell me, that'd be great. It is from RealNetworks, but I don't know what our rules are when they're re-using a review. They have at least credited it to Rolling Stone, though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and I've just found out that RealNetworks own the rollingstone.com website, so it shouldn't be a problem. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rollingstone.com works now, so I've updated that url. Must have been a temporary glitch. I've also replaced the other one with the real.com url. No more dead links. Happy happy, joy joy!! Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. There's still a dead link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having issues with the URL., which is http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[13627,56779] No matter how I format the reference, either in a cite web template or as a manually formatted reference, it doesn't do the page correctly. Can anyone help how to figure this out? Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite news|first=Daniel |last=Kreps |title=Clarkson’s "Already Gone" Video Debuts, Despite Kelly’s Protests |url=http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[13627,56779] |work=[[Rolling Stone]] |date=July 27, 2009 |accessdate=July 29, 2009 }}
What I did was not subtle but it worked. With only one bracket I remember using a <nowiki> to get it to work but in this case an archive seems the best way to go. Hekerui (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think of that (the archival)! Thank you :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the link statuses are in working order, I have one more comment. In the "Release history" section, there's no citation for the release date in Australia. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well honestly, I've seen that many of the more recent FAs don't bother with a release history section. And in my mind also, it makes no sense to include one. If the song is released in 20 or 30 countries, then shouldn't we list the release dates for every single country, or at least every country that it charted in? But it's unfeasible to do that. I've removed the section twice, but there's an editor who keeps putting it back in. I don't know why he picks these countries either. If you're happy with the section being removed, I'll gladly remove it again. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, looking at a featured song article, 4 Minutes, it doesn't have a "Release History" section in it. I see no problem with the section being removed. But either way, I'll Support it being a Featured Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 05:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment

I reviewed the article, some problems are:

Infobox
  • (see release history) -> Not needed
  • Lenght -> Only it is needed the main length (Album version) the rest should (may)be in the prose
  • Removed. Since the lengths differ by mere seconds, I don't think it's worth mentioning at all. This is one of those things that just keeps getting added and removed in song articles Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • 2008 Beyoncé Knowles song -> Did yiu mean 2008 Beyoncé Knowles' song or 2008 Beyoncé Knowles's song?
  • Nope. I meant "the 2008 Beyonce Knowles song", with no possessive intended. Just like it would be " the 2010 Lady Gaga song, 'Alejandro'" to pick an example with no s. As far as I know the punctuation is currently correct, but if I'm told by a second person, then I'll change it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song peaked at Number 13 -> typo

Number -> number. TbhotchTalk C. 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. TbhotchTalk C. 05:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music Video
  • review in Rolling Stone -> Rolling stone (magazine) redirect to Rolling Stone. On Live performance Rolling Stone is again wikilinked
Critical reception
  • Slant Magazine shouldn't be in itallics because it is not a published magazine
  • according Lamb, "toe the line between underlying pain and an almost cold, removed sense of resignation ... Each line trails into an unknown, undefined distance." -> It is in two sections
This mean that the line above is in the "Composition" section too. Lamb didn't make another comment? TbhotchTalk C. 02:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! I removed it from the critical reception section and left it in the composition section. There's a second quote from Lamb at the beginning of the Critical reception section, so I don't think there needs to be more from him. Thanks for clarifying! Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  • Consistency needed in accessdates (Retrieved July 29, 2009 / 3 August 2009.)
  • REF 58 need a fix.
  • Removed
Categories
  • Rock ballads / Pop ballads -> Never were mentioned before.
  • From the Composition section: "Already Gone" is a soft rock ballad with R&B and classical music influences. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems on the article, after all this is a good work. TbhotchTalk C. 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of your points, but I've queried some. Thanks for reviewing :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this statement needs reworking: "Clarkson's vocal range spanning from B3 to E5". This appears to be sourced to the sheet music. Correctly, the statement should read: "The sheet music indicates the vocal range spans B3 to E5" or "The vocal range spans B3 to E5 in the sheet music". If the original statement is sourced to a performance or a recording then the original statement is correct but should be sourced to the performance or recording. SoniaSyle (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Ref 1 and others: ASCAP (publisher) should be spelt out
  • Ref 7: How would this be verified, on the given information?
  • One would have to find a recording of the program. All the information is there to do that. It was on the SIRIUS OutQ station of the Sirius Satellite Radio network, on The Morning Jolt with Larry Flick programme, which was presented by Larry Flick and was broadcast on August 3, 2009. I don't see why this is any different to a non-online source for a book. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question I was asking was not how to find the program, but how to find the information within the program, in the same way that we require page references to guide us to information within a book. The "cite episode" template has a field which enables you to indicate "minutes in", which is like a page reference. Any chance of that here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I doubt it. I have no idea how far into the show the interview was. The interview is here (part 1) and here (part 2) though, but I know I can't link to those cos they're copyright violations. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 8 and 9: MTV is a not a print source and should not be italicised. Check for others, similar
  • MTV still italicised in Ref 8. Also, the sources in 31 and 33 should not be italicised.
  • Note: These have not been fixed, though the numbers are now 9, 32 and 34 Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later note: MTV still italicised in Ref. 10. Others appear to be fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: Something wrong with the formatting: check the template
  • Author given as just "Johnston". The only author information I can find on the site is "Posted by Maura". If there is uncertainty over authorship, best leave it out. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: Why is this reliable (Perez Hilton)?
  • Perez Hilton is a former journalist, his website perezhilton.com is all about celebrityness, which the article URL falls into. He has appeared on numerous TV shows and news programs to discuss his work, he has been profiled in magazines such as Wired and Los Angeles. The fact that it is a blog doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable. WP:TWITTER Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this one could argue with WP:PRIMARY that it's okay because it's such a minor descriptive statement and needs no interpetation. It was also reported by votefortheworst.com, which is a notable site. Btw this has become a fad apparently. Hekerui (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link for it at votefortheworst.com? Also, for my own understanding, what makes that site a RS? Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said notable. It's not hard to find the post on the website. It doesn't matter since it's not used in the article. Hekerui (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you did. I was wondering if it is a RS, and more so than Perez so that I could use that as a ref instead. I haven't found anywhere else that mentions her mashing the two songs together, but then, I'm not sure if it's totally important to the article either. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38: Why is this reliable (Slant Magazine)?
The aggregator Metacritic uses Slant Magazine and the review was written by their main staff reviewer. Their media kit also notes that they exist since 2001, what other media commented on them and where their people appeared, and the kind of traffic they attract. Granted, this is a resumé but together with the earlier points I'd say this well passes muster. Hekerui (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hopefully this evidence will let the reference stand. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the question "Why is this source reliable?" does not mean that it is not. It is merely a request for extra information to establish reliability, which has now been given. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 51: Not formatted
  • Ref 52: The language is "Flemish" not "Flemmish"

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Some quickies from one of the least musically inclined reviewers here:

  • Critical reception doesn't seem to be covered in the lead. That is the only section without a mention at the beginning, and it could use a sentence or two or summary.
  • Background and release: "He later told The Denver Post that has gotten over the situation...". Missing a "he" in there.
  • Don't think the comma after Entertainment Weekly should be there.
  • Check for missing punctuation after "but admitted he likes the song".
  • Composition: Little overlinking of MTV here, considering there was a link to them in the previous section.
  • Live performances: Another couple of those repeated links: MTV (again) and The Hartford Courant.
  • "Lori Huffman of Atlantic City Weekly described Clarkson's performance of the song an 'emotional wallop'...". Missing "as"?
  • "in the Los Angeles Times, while noting that she was 'solid' and 'sound[ed] terrific'." Should "while" be "which" or similar here? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done all of the above. Thanks, Giants2008! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly overlooked? A couple of small sources matters, above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Brian, I had missed these but they are fixed now. Thank you, Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would fail this, for though the information is probably all correct, too many times the sources don't support the article statements. Please correct and forgive anything mistaken below, this is rather a rushed look at the article.

In the lead, sources should be given if using direct quotes.

WP:LEADCITE says quotes "should be", not "must be" cited. The same words are used in the main body, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat the cite. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence in the body of the article, two sources (ASCAP and Nick Levine in Digital Spy) are given to support who wrote the song and when, but ASCAP doesn't give us the "when", and Levine doesn't so much as mention the song, so one cannot use the two sources to definitively give the date (they may have been working together for some time earlier than the Levine news piece, or for a good deal later: we don't know when "Already Gone" was written from these sources).

Removed "in early 2008". Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence, we're told "Tedder and Clarkson wrote six songs" but the source, Levine again, says no such thing, and that "'Already Gone' is one of three of those that appear on the tracklist" with Levine cited again, and again it's unsupported by Levine.

Another source is given for this second part above—CBS—but the CBS piece in fact quotes Clarkson saying, "We wrote about six songs together, four or five of them made the album."

OK, so I've removed the Digital Spy ref [2] from the first part of the sentence, but left it and ref [4], the cited quote from Clarkson, at the end of the sentence. It is actually three song that ended up on the album, but I don't believe this is contentious so it doesn't really need a cite. Anyway, the album itself can be used as a primary source for that. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third sentence now: "However, in late 2008, she heard Beyoncé Knowles' song 'Halo'"—source given (NY Post): "Only when her new CD, 'All I Ever Wanted,' was ready to be shipped did she hear 'Halo'" (i.e. no source for this being late 2008.)

Ugh, I had it in a different source that the album was being prepared and pressed in late 08 but I can't find it now. Removed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth para., first sentence: "The first two singles lifted from All I Ever Wanted were uptempo pop rock songs, but executives at RCA Records wanted a slower ballad to be released as the third single". The CBS source given supports neither clause.

Ugh. This was in there. I wonder if CBC conduct the same practices as the BBC and edit their articles at a later date. Removed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki article: "Clarkson told MTV that it was unfortunate that although the two songs sound the same, they do have different melodies." No, rephrase, this changes the meaning of what she said to something near its opposite.

That isn't how I wrote it. Rephrased. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the section counts EW as thinking it likely a leaked song is about Tedder, whereas they ascribe that speculation to Idolator. It then joins together lyrics from two different parts of the song as if quoting run-on lines verbatim, which is a bit sloppy.

Corrected. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's the first section.

I feel like all the information here has been gathered and put together in good faith with a deal of work, but it ran into trouble with regard to what information came from what source. It doesn't feel like it would take a lot to put the above right, but the article is not ready in my opinion. 86.44.16.126 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I've checked the sentences in the rest of the paragraphs, and can't find issue with them, but if you're willing to continue the review, I'll happily correct anything else you find. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Already_Gone_(Kelly_Clarkson_song)/archive1&oldid=1089913999"