Talk:Sally (Flight of the Conchords)

Fair use rationale for Image:Conchords 101 Sally.jpg

Image:Conchords 101 Sally.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been flagged due to a lack of a link back to the referencing page. This has now been fixed. -- BigBadaboom0 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sally (Flight of the Conchords)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 03:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   "Jemaine falls for, (and subsequently, begins dating), Sally - Bret's former girlfriend" -> Ditch the brackets, the commas are enough here. There's also a few hyphens being used when dashes (spaced ens or unspaced ems) should be used.
   There's "Jemaine" and "Jermaine" used here (infobox caption, for instance), I'm assuming the former is correct as it's the actual dude's name.
   "most notably "Robots," and "Not Crying," and "Most Beautiful Girl (In the Room)"" -> the commas here shouldn't be inside quotes as they aren't part of the song titles; and you could lose that first "and".
   "The latter was later nominated for a Outstanding Original Music And Lyrics Emmy award" -> "an Outstanding"; but I'd probably reverse that a little and have "an Emmy award for Outstanding Music and Lyrics".
   I'd include links to Jemaine Clement and Bret McKenzie in the plot section; though I'm not too sure how—are they essentially playing themselves or is it just a Fresh Prince thing where the names are the only connection? If it's the former just link the characters to the articles, if it's the latter then do it as "Bret (Bret McKenzie), for instance.
   Lose the links in "cardboard robot", pairing two common terms like this makes it seem like it's one link to something more specific (cardboard robot in this case, which I would probably have abandoned this review to read...)
   Would also be worth listing an actor for Mel (especially since it's one of those unisex names).
   Probably worth noting early in the Production section that the band predates the series; I'd thought it was a Spinal Tap thing where they'd done the show first and then did some albums off the back of that.
   "The episode contain several cultural references" -> "contains".
   I'd move the mention of Judah Friedlander's cameo away from the preceding sentence, as it's not exactly a "cultural reference".
   "This song was voted #60" -> I'd spell out "number sixty" here, or even just "number 60".
   There's a few more instances here of punctuation placed in song titles when it shouldn't; and a repeat of the above-mentioned Emmy thing.
   "negated any reason the to buy cable to watch the show." -> Sounds a little colloquial, perhaps "the availability of the band's music on video sites like YouTube meant that watching the series was not worth the cost of a cable subscription".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Is there a secondary source that could supplement ref 2?
   I'm also not really comfortable with the cultural references just being sourced to the episode itself. There seems to be a good amount of stuff on The AV Club (here too) about the duo, something there might help you source this stuff to a secondary source.
   Are there authors for refs 11 and 12? Would be worth adding.
   Ref 3 could be formatted using {{cite episode}} without asides like "Documentary broadcast on TV3 (New Zealand)" (just use the |network= field) instead).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Seems alright. Hard for me to judge if too much weight is given to the music or not without knowing how much of the episode is actually musical performance but I'm assuming it's fine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Grand.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Grand.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not sure the rationale for File:Conchords 101 Sally.jpg is enough; I'm also wondering if it's even needed. I think the cardboard robot picture works better as an illustration of the episode (I know it's from a concert but my assumption is that those costumes are the same, so we essentially cheat and get a free "screenshot" here).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I think this one's going to take a fair heft of work, to be honest. The sourcing seems to be very primary-based, though those primary sources can stay if something secondary could be found to bolster them; they don't need to be outright replaced. If you give me a ping about it tomorrow I'll check HighBeam for anything I can find on this to help out, in the meantime there's some prose fixes to be seen to and maybe something from those AV Club links might help too. Going to fire this on hold for now then. GRAPPLE X 05:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did quite a bit of work on this bad boy. Fixed the prose issues and backup and/or removed the primary sources. I also added some dates to articles and generally just spiffed up the article. Tell me what you think.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely looking a lot better now. I think we're good to go with this one. Well done! GRAPPLE X 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sally (Flight of the Conchords). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hbo.com/conchords/img/episode/lyrics_sally.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)