Talk:Lift Up Your Face/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: (CK)Lakeshade (talk · contribs) 00:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, before I even get into the prose and the article itself I'm already seeing issues.

Resolved issues

;References "Since its release, Third Day has performed "Lift Up Your Face" in concert." Source? Not sure why it needs a source if it can't really be disputed, given that I have sources for live performances listed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) "Released August 23, 2010" source? WP:NOR. Corrected it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Quotations should not be in the lead. Alright, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) WP:DATE violations. Why are the article's references written in British Enlgish? This is an American band and article, follow either YYYY-MM-DD or January, 18, 2001. Fixed for publication dates. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Still active, you have incorrect "assessdate" DATE compliance. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) How is it not compliant? The dates are consistent now in M-D-Y and per CITEVAR that's all that matters. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Oops, It wasn't last night. I see you've corrected it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC) References 28 and 29 ("^ "Billboard Christian CHR. 23 October 2010". Billboard Hot Christian AC. 11 December 2010). Those are not appropriate links, at all. Find the applicable chart and link to it, include a properly WP:MOS formatted reference with a title, publisher, date... ect. The links are behind a paywall and I cannot link to them because I have no membership on Billboard.biz, where the content is held, and thus am unable to actually get a link to it besides the generic 'you need a membership to get this' page. The format I am using is essentially identical to the one used on Just Like Heaven, a featured article. If it is good enough for FA standards I don't see a problem with it here. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Irrelevant. Don't use a 4 year old WP:OTHERSTUFF argument please, that article was passed before MOS was fully developed. Add proper links or it violates GA criteria and I won't pass the article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I'll see what I can do but there are no guarantees I can find a way to cite this. I would hate to remove relevant information from the article. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Okay, I think I've fixed them - it's still behind a paywall, nothing I can do there, but the format is consistent with the rest of the article. Toa Nidhiki05 21:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC) What makes "New Release Tuesday" a high-quality reliable source? (WP:RS) For one, the website has enough standing that Third Day bothered to have an interview with one of their reviewers. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Interviews are done with "That Grape Juice (a blog)" as well, but that doesn't make it reliable. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) This isn't a blog. If you would like to challenged it, please tell me why it isn't a reliable source. In the Contemporary Christian music community it is a reliable source, and that is all WP:RS demands. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC) That's not an answer, or how this works. I'm challenging it, it's your job to tell me what makes it reliable. Are the writers journalists? Had it won awards? "In the Contemporary Christian music community it is a reliable source" Source to back up this claim? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC) You haven't given a single reason you are suspicious of the source so I can't really refute anything, can I? Toa Nidhiki05 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC) For future reference, any reference you add to an article you need to be able to prove why it is reliable in case it is challenged. I read the About page and the senior editor makes the article reliable - you need to be able to prove that next time, not me. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) "Genre Christian rock, southern rock" Again, sources? I see a source for southern rock but not Christian. Third Day is a Christian rock band so I think that's a given; it doesn't need to be sourced if it really isn't disputed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Again, irrelevant. You're not allowed to add WP:POV'ed WP:OR to an article. Find a source stating the song is that genre or remove it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC) According to our policy on inline citations, I only need to source for four things - direct quotations, statements that are likely to be challenged, statements I believe are likely to be challenged, or contentious material about living persons. It is not OR because the statement is not likely to be challenged. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I challenge it; thus, argument void. I state it's Christian-pop. Find a source or remove it, or I won't pass the article per GA criteria. End of. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC) No, it is not void. It is a southern rock song by a Christian band, it thus isn't likely to be challenged that the song is Christian rock. If you really insist on not using it I'll take it out. Toa Nidhiki05 21:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Remove it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Under "Critical", why doesn't "the Blind Boys of Alabama" have a capitol "The" when it's part of their name? I wasn't sure what the policy was for bands starting with 'The', but I can change it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Release history section needs reformatting, there is a coding error. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I didn't notice anything specific - what exactly is the error? Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Check the rowspan, it stands at 4 when it should be 2. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Alright, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC) References: According to MOS, only "magazines, and newspapers (generally) should be in italics. Please remove the italics in the "work/publisher field" in your references in reference: 2 - 11, 14, and 25 - 31. Corrected all. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Charts and Personnel: The charts would do better with a {{col-2}} span to put them side-by-side. Alright, done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) The same can be said with the 'Personnel' section which should be named "Credits and personnel". Done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Personnel section needs to comply with WP:DASH. Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Other version:

• Perhaps we can change this into a "Tracklisting" section and include it there, along with also including the iTunes single release there. See We R Who We R to see what I mean.

  That would be preferable to the current stub section, certainly. Not sure how the remix will work though since it was a bonus track, not a single or B-side. It isn't essential to the page, certainly. Toa Nidhiki05 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • You could just include them both in the section, I don't think there's a rule against it as the "Tracklisting" section is supposed to include all legally released versions of the song. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Alright, done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recording: "Recorded The Quarry (Kennesaw, GA) The Smokestack (Nashville, TN)" This should be included under Credits and Personnel, as well it wouldn't hurt to include it in the "Background" section. Further, this is sourced in the liner notes, correct? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure why I didn't note that to begin with because I almost always do that. I've added it to both sections. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)