Talk:All I Ask/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Winkelvi (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Starting review. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Starting review today and will use a section-by-section approach with each change or notation needed marked by my signature. This will help keep things in order and time-stamped. As each area and point is addressed and completed successfully, it will be marked appropriately. There will be a GA checklist added at some point as well. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede:

• Suggest removing stilted language such as "deemed" and "whilst".

• Please check via various reliable sources to make sure Adele is a singer and songwriter and not a singer-songwriter as there is a difference between the two.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The phrase, "Lyrically the track...", seems awkward. While technically and popularly correct to refer to the song as a track, generally that terminology is reserved for talking about the song's location on a CD or MP3. A reword here would be preferable.
• Critical reviews: The way this is worded currently gives a glance-reader the impression that the song only received positive reviews. Is that accurate? Further, the body of the article states "general acclaim", which doesn't match the lede.
• Did the song chart in the U.S. or Canada? Since this is the English Wikipedia, and the readership is largely from North America, I think this should be noted in the lede.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• The wording, "with the production of the song being provided by The Smeezingtons." is awkward and too formal for an article on a pop song. The term "know your audience" comes to mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Background and composition:

• I imagine there are better, clearer, more common terms to use in regard to the Smeezingtons' production efforts than "helmed". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Far too many quotations take up this section. Articles are to be comprised of prose more than quotations. If the section consists more of quotations than prose written by editors based on the quotations and sources, there isn't an encyclopedia article but a quote farm. In articles about subjects such as this, such quotations make for something more along the lines of a fan magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Quotes are not to be a replacement for prose in the way of content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception:

• Far too many quotations take up this section. Articles are to be comprised of prose more than quotations. If the section consists more of quotations than prose written by editors based on the quotations and sources, there isn't an encyclopedia article but a quote farm. In articles about subjects such as this, such quotations make for something more along the lines of a fan magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Quotes are not to be a replacement for prose in the way of content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Commercial performance:

Live performances:

• Far too many quotations take up this section. Articles are to be comprised of prose more than quotations. If the section consists more of quotations than prose written by editors based on the quotations and sources, there isn't an encyclopedia article but a quote farm. In articles about subjects such as this, such quotations make for something more along the lines of a fan magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Quotes are not to be a replacement for prose in the way of content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Credits and personnel:

• I am confused as to why the section header states "Credits and personnel" but there is a subsection titled "Locations" that doesn't fit into either credits or personnel.
• In "Personnel", there are five job assignments listed and linked that are essentially against guidelines on WP:EGG. In other words, the listing and links associated with the listing are unclear and don't follow and could be unclear to an unfamiliar reader: "production" leads to Record producer; "engineering" leads to Audio engineering; "assistant engineering" also leads to Audio engineering; "mixing" leads to Audio mixing (recorded music); "assistant mixing" also leads to Audio mixing (recorded music).
• Listing The Smeezingtons is limited and could be confusing to an unacquainted reader. There is no explanation as to who they are, almost as if it is a euphemism. They actually sound like they are a music group. A reader might ask, "Why is a music group producing a record album?" and "Who are they?" A reader can click on the link, but a brief explanation would be a good idea.
• There is some overlinking occurring in this section as more than one person linked in this section is already linked earlier in the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Charts:

• See the comments below from Azealia911 in the General comments section. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References:

External links:

General discussion

@Winkelvi:, Got all your comments so far. When can I expect the review to proceed?--MaranoFan (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Will be continuing as time allows. As the review criteria states, GA reviews can take up to 7 days. The largest task ahead that I see from a quick once-over is going through each of the references. If things go smoothly, I imagine it will be completed within that time frame. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

7 days is not a necessity, but just a rare case. Since the length of this article is relatively short, nor is it a controversial article, I would expect the review to be done by max 2-3 days. No hurry though, take your time.--MaranoFan (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said above (and GA Review guidelines also state), reviews can take up to seven days. Also note that there is nothing in the guidelines which state the review has to be done in seven days (hence the use of "can" in the previous as a caveat). At this point, I also don't think it's going to take up to seven days, but it wouldn't be fair to either of us for me to say I will be done in a set amount of time and then not be able to deliver. We are, after all, volunteers who give of our own time to do anything in Wikipedia. Like I also said above, with a quick purview, I don't see a lot of work to be done because it is such a small, non-complex article and the references will likely take the most time to go over. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article sounds very bias and fan written. It's not broad in its coverage at all (which I have seen another say, too), and I would argue that it fails based on lack of notability and coverage. I can also see unsourced/fan interpreted information, which is worrying. It's also become a very current song, with live promotion and what is sure to be multiple chartings and peaks in the next week or so, which will significantly alter the stability of the editing history. It's generally not very well written and I can see multiple issues with the references. The attitude of the nominater regarding the duration of the review, I think, is really rude, too, and bordering on ungrateful. The nominator should thankful that someone decided to take this on after a mere 18 hours of nomination time; some articles in the same category have been waiting 8 months. Winkelvi, you are the reviewer, and what you decide is up to you. But this article has been rush written and rush nominated, and for some reason, the nominator is in a rush for it to be presumptuously passed. If I was the reviewer, it would constitute a fail, for the many aforementioned reasons (excluding the nominators tone, I just think that was unfair toward you).  — Calvin999 21:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999, could you quote from the article what you consider to be "biased"? The article appears rather neutral to me, having read through it twice. --Ches (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The use of acclaimed and raved is fan written. Where does anything say that is is acclaimed or raved? It should be "positive reviews". Also, the use of it being "deep" is a quote in the prose, but not a quote in the lead, which is worrisome, as that either needs to be sourced or another word used. Pop isn't sourced. Critical reception is a WP:QUOTEFARM too. As I said, it was rush written and rush nominated.  — Calvin999 21:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999 - the word "deep" is used in a quote - I can't find it in the lead. --Ches (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Musically, it is a deep, resonant piano ballad." - Your first two read throughs couldn't have been that thorough then.  — Calvin999 22:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Calvin999, ah yes, my apologies. It may be wise to just delete that sentence - I can't figure out how to make that less weaselly. In fact, any attempts to make it less will probably make it more. --Ches (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are multiple charts that have been completely ignored, it seems that the charting history of the song has not been researched at all more than the main charts of a country. Some of the charts which have been left off are:

• US Digital Songs - Peak of #21
• US Pop Digital Songs - Peak of #15
• Hot Canadian Digital Songs - Peak of #40
• Netherlands Digital Songs - Peak of #8
• Sweden Digital Songs - Peak of #9

All of the above were found during a routine search of Adele's chart history on the Billboard archives.

• UK Singles Sales Chart - Peak of #13
• UK Downloads Chart - Peak of #13
• UK Indie Singles Chart - Peak of #5

There may be one or two I have missed on the UK Charts as they have multiple sub-charts and their site is difficult to navigate around.

• They were just from two countries that I'm familiar with. I'm not passing judgement about the nominator or the state of the article here, but I fear if this section isn't well researched, the rest of the article may not be. For an article on an Adele song, it does seem rather short and rushed. Azealia911 _talk 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reviewer comments I have to agree with everything said here by editors commenting about the state of the article as well as the tone of it. There seem to be too many things going on with it so early on for it to be passed now or even in a couple of days. I'm going to put it on hold for now and hope the nominator will work on the notes given here by other editors. I will also add my own further comments and notes during the seven day holding period. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Azealia911 The charts you are suggesting are component charts, which are not eligible for inclusion in the charts table. See Hello (Adele song), Surely Hello outpeaked AIA on all of these charts, but none of them appear in its chart table. And about the article being short, IT IS AN ALBUM TRACK. How much do you expect there to be? There are like 3 paras in all sections except commercial performance (becuz there ust aint enough about this factor) and like 40 references. You, for e.g. have nominated articles much shorter for GA than this, case in point "Wallace". Also, Calvin999, You are biased about me znd are here on bad faith. I see no actual concern in your comments but just THE ARTICLE SHOULD FAIL BECAUSE I HATE THE NOMINATOR AND I WILL TRY EVERYTHING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. Please give suggestions in a A -----> B format. Currently, all your comments are unclear. Guys, this isn't a community discussion, You cant CANVASS about it. All my comments about this were made pre-review too. And Calvin, you have not stayed out od my userspace even after demand. Now, ok.--MaranoFan (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:USCHARTS, the only chart I have listed which you might not be able to use is Pop Digital songs, per Digital Songs being present. But because the song hasn't entered the Hot 100, the rest are fine to use. There are also no component rules about other countries charting, so all of the UK/non-US Charts I have listed are appropriate. Azealia911 _talk 07:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

MaranoFan, please try to keep calm about this. I think points made above are valid and worth taking into consideration, that's why I have put this nom on hold. Nothing wrong with that, and it will give you some time to make changes without anxiety. It is a small article and it seems that the seven day on-hold period is a good amount of time to tidy some things up and perhaps take a day away from the article to come back to it with objective eyes. You will likely end up seeing some things that you didn't before which could be worded or done differently/better. Yelling at those who have commented here and making personal attacks is unnecessary is will only encourage disruption. Please don't go there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may comment on this, let me just say that you are running into an unfortunate situation here, kind of like how I did with "Birthday". With "All I Ask" having been performed at the Grammys and Ellen, it is highly likely that it will be given the single treatment. When it does, you'll have to constantly update the article to keep it current and maintain it worthy of GA-status. I'm not saying you can't, but it is hard. To sum up, this nomination is premature (even Hello would be, to be honest). Thank you pedro | talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not in the guidelines. Haha, not confirmed as a single and probably wont even be following the Grammys debacle. She just put WWWY on Streaming services. The Grammy performance was just an album track performance, and Ellen was a rectification. Since this is not confirmed as a single, that it definitely not grounds for failure.--MaranoFan (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't be here on that bad a faith because others agree with me. Your attitude is disgusting. That is evident from how you have spoken to the kind reviewer previously here.  — Calvin999 08:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I addressed all of Azealia's above commentary about charts, and, well. other people's comments about suggestions on how to improve the article. Waiting for more commentary.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A few weeks ago after her performance of All I Ask at the Grammys and the Ellen Show, I saw an article saying that sales of the single were over 574,000 units. It should have a gold certification by now, not sure why it's taking so long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.231.204 (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 

Fail and final comments

Rather than belabor things in the hope that the GA nom is going to progress toward a "pass", I'm going to give the following statement. Keeping this open as "on hold" when it's really obvious it should fail is not fair to the nominator.

When I chose to take this review, I had not looked through the article first to see what condition it was in. I wanted to find reasons and a way to pass this article as a GA and to do it with completely unbiased eyes. I was able to accomplish the unbiased eyes portion. The initial comments I posted were from a brief once-over and then comments from others came to light. All good thoughts and suggestions. Unfortunately, there are a number of things still not addressed with this article by the nominator that have been mentioned by myself as well as others with extensive experience as both editors and GA nominators and reviewers.

A few of the most concerning items to me are: the article has the tone of a fan-written article with too much "gushing" and unencyclopedic language; the lack of balance in the way of reviews - which, to be fair, because the song is so new, it's possible there really aren't that many negative comments or reviews out there to include. Which brings me to a point already made: the song is too new for the article about it to be an accurate representation at this time, and its notability is questionable as far as wide coverage. Adele, of course, is notable. The song? Not so much. These two points on their own make it not eligible for GA, in my opinion (and, it would seem, the opinions of others commenting here). I think the nomination was a bit premature. Not the fault of the nominator, really. Those who spend a lot of time working on an article tend to think of it as a labor of love. I think this situation is no different and that subjective view of where this article is currently is what brought the nominator to believe it was ready to go for GA. Coming to that decision is understandable.

This article has potential -- potential that has yet to be realized because there just has been enough time gone by for the article to evolve properly and "mature", so to speak, in the way of notability and coverage. At this time, however, based on what's been brought up by other experienced editors and myself here, this article has to fail GA. My hope is that the nominator will take the comments here from everyone to heart if they choose to renominate the article at a later date - a much later date, actually. There's more that has to happen here than can be fixed with rewriting what's already in place. GA articles are supposed to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. This article fall far from that criteria at this time. Another thing I hope the nominator remembers: a GA fail is not a black mark on the nominator nor is it a failure for the nominator and/or creator and principal contributor(s). It's just a way of saying, "Not yet, but definitely try again".
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.