Talk:Love Somebody (Maroon 5 song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 18:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is fine
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I don't see issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I seriously question using "Focus on the Family" as a mainstream source. Starpulse is dubious - they prominently offer to accept reviews from the public, but there may be editorial review after submission; Youtube would normally be a problem, but for what it's used for, it's probably fine. Other sources mostly alright, though I haven't heard of several
	2c. it contains no original research.	Mentioning the band posted to Youtube without a secondary source might not fly at FAC, but it's fine here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The section on charts only mentions South Korea. I can see no possible reason to not mention the main markets for the song's language.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sure
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Decent; it's hard to do critical reception sections for this sort of thing 100% neutrally, but an attempt clearly has been made.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio.	Inclusion of images: Shouldn't we fair-use the cover of the single?
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine for current images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	For current images
	7. Overall assessment.	Some issues left to deal with; good start.

Let's summarize: First of all thanks for reviewing. Why do you think that Plugged In is not reliable? It has a publisher which is descent one and can certainly stay. About StarPulse, tbh I am not sure either if it's reliable source, but I can remove it. For the charts, this is a song, not a single and received minimal promotion. As a result of that it only charted on the South Korean chart; that's why there is not other information about the charting. Also about cover, the song doesn't have a cover. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Plugged In is clearly a fringe source - it's not a mainstream music magazine, it's by the very conservative Christian Focus on the Family and their article on this song reflects this after the opening section. It's rather far out of the mainstream to use for an article where the major problem is too many possible sources of about equal weight.

If it wasn't a single, then the other points related specifically to that can be waived. However, it's listed in Template:Maroon_5_singles, and the article mentions it as a single a couple times, so this could be clarified. I'm largely inclined to support once that's fixed up.

Oh, and as to the ? next to neutral - I suspect that's inherent to these types of articles, so, while it'd be nice if a metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes for music, I don't intend to hold things back if there isn't. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with music articles? Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (music) before reviewing the article? An article about a song that is not a single can exist only if it charted. The song charted and can certainly stay as an article on Wikipedia. Your review is so confusing... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think I said anything that would justify that response. I never questioned the notability, but you said it wasn't a single, but the article implies it was in several places. This should be clarified, to remove confusion (Was it a South Korean-only single? I'm not an expert on Korean charts). I also said that if it isn't a single, my requests for the cover of the single and such don't apply. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It was a single, here's an Indonesian page with the cover of the single. http://creativedisc.com/reviews/exclusive-single/creative-disc-exclusive-single-%E2%80%93-21-jan/ Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What? It is not a single, the source you provided is actually totally unreliable, and not the source you are changeling. If it charted it doesn't mean it is a single... it needs a release date [digital download (iTunes, Amazon, 7digital etc.) or radio date (mainstream, urban etc.)] for the song be a single. This way it's just a song that charted in South Korea. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this conversation should be divided into separate threads, but please try to keep up; there's several points. The Focus on the Family source is a completely different issue - with no relation whatsoever to the article implying this song is a single, when, if it was, it was only one in small foreign markets. The link I gave has no relation to the source I challenged because I wasn't talking about the source I challenged, and hadn't been for some time. You're being very aggressive and making it very hard to work with you to do the relatively small amount of work needed to get this article to GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you ask about it, though, the Focus on the Family source needs to go. This article can't be promoted when such a questionable source is in it. I suppose that if you ask on the WP:RSN and they say it's a reliable, mainstream source, I could waive it, but if you read the article you're quoting from, you'll see the entire second half is an attack on the album for including cursewords and sexual content - which is not something that mainstream sources tend to spend so much time on. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There, I removed the link. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, any song can have an article if it passes notabity requirements. Charting is one determinant of what may make a song notable, but WP:NSONGS certainly doesn't say a song that isn't a single can only have an article if it charted. This has no bearing on the review of this article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rereview: I think we've found all the issues, and dealt with the ambiguities since it wasn't a straight single, or, if it was, these singles were very obscure and of very limited release - which removes many of the issues. I'm surprised it didn't place somewhere other than South Korea, but so long as you've checked reasonably well, I'd say this passes.

In other words, if you can confirm that other countries have been checked, I'll begin promotion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, charting is really needed so there can be a commercial performance section. However, apart of South Korea, the song didn't chart nowhere. The thing is, it was not promoted with music video or live performance or sent to radio, it's just a song taken from the album. South Korean people buy them separately (it's weird I know, but they help us build most of the song articles). South Korea is the only chart. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I have to admit I come from this from a classical music background, so I apologise if I had to be educated a bit. Let me pull up the promotion instructions, and I'll set to work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, it's alright. We got to finish it somehow in the end. Thanks ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)