Talk:Die Another Day (song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

• There seems to be some ambiguity over when the song premiered. If this was scheduled for debut on October 10, 2002 but aired a week earlier than that, can you find a specific date? I'm not sure whether this indicates a late September or early October release. In any case, the first airing should be the date listed in the infobox, which clearly isn't October 22nd.
  • Adding the date of the leak is incorrect per WP:LEAK which states that "The date an album or song was leaked onto the Internet is not notable unless it results in some other action that is notable, such as being directly responded to by the musical artist or their management, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage. Do not add leak dates to articles unless a notable consequence of the leak can be properly sourced to the same regular, reliable media sources that would be expected for any other content in the article. A website which announces album or song leaks but contains no other content, such as diditleak.co.uk or hasitleaked.com, is not an appropriate source under the requirements of WP:RS." Hence the leak date is not the first release date for the song and nor is the airplay date. Release dates are the dates when the song/album is first available commercially. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • In that case, use October 10th as that was its original debut scheduling before the leak occurred. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Definitely not, because the release did not happen on October 10, 2002. A leak happened prior to that resulting in the song being starting to play on radio. The formal comemrcial release did happen on October 22, 2002. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
        • At least mention its early October leak in the lead (upon reviewing the Hollywood.com link, it appears to be October 3, 4, or 5).
          • I have included this but did not give any date per WP:UNDUE and since it was ambiguous in the reports too. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• The name of the previous "Bond single" (in this case, "The World Is Not Enough") should be mentioned by name.
  •  Done
• "It was nominated for a Golden Globe Award in the category of Best Original Song and for two Grammy Awards in the categories of Best Dance Recording and Best Short Form Music Video" would read better as "It was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song and for two Grammy Awards for Best Dance Recording and Best Short Form Music Video".

Rest are all corrected. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done

Background and conception

• Per WP:OVERCITE, ref#2 should only be used at the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph.
• While this doesn't leak into anymore paragraphs in the section, more WP:OVERCITE at the end of the second paragraph- just use ref#3.

• But that is not a case of OVERCITE, its a different reference alltogether. #2 is Burlingame p. 277, #3 is Burlingame p. 278 and #4 is a MTV reference. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• I really meant that there was a use of ref#3 and ref#4 at the end of the last paragraph followed by another ref#4 in the following section, but moving the quotebox up fixed this issue, so.....  Done

Writing and development

• Put this quotebox towards the top of the section.
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#3 should only be used at the end of the first paragraph.

• This is correct and I have removed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done

Recording and compostion

• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#3 should just be used at the end of the second paragraph.

• Again, that is used as inline in the first pragraph, cannot just simply move into the second para, because the first para content remains unsourced then. I have removed the OVERCITE from first and second para though. You need to understand that first para can contain one cite and second para can contain the same cite in the same section. But yes, you are correct that within the same para when they are repeated, then its OVERCITE

• Sorry if I misinterpreted WP:OVERCITE, it just comes across as redundant to use the same reference twice or more without using any other reference(s) in between them.

• More WP:OVERCITE- remove ref#3 from the first sentence of the third paragraph.
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#11 should just be used at the end of the third sentence from the third paragraph.
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#13 should just be used at the end of the third paragraph.

• Others are adjusted accordingly. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done

Critical reception

• "nominated for a Golden Globe award in the category of Best Original Song, but lost the honor to U2's 'The Hands That Built America' from Gangs of New York'" would read better as something like "nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Original Song, but lost to U2's 'The Hands That Built America' from 'Gangs of New York'".

• Corrected. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Chart performance

• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#34 should just be used once at the end of the third sentence of the first paragraph.
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#36 should just be used once at the end of the first paragraph.

• Corrected. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Music Video

Development

• In the first paragraph, ref#55 should come after the closing ")".
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#57 should just be used once at the end of Ole Sanders' quote.
• More WP:OVERCITE- ref#58 should just be used once at the end of the paragraph after Ole Sanders' quote.

Reception and analysis

• "nominated in the category of Best Video from a Film at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, but did not win the honor." would read better as something like "nominated for Best Video from a Film at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards, but lost."
• More WP:OVERCITE- you don't need to use ref#67 right after ref#61 only to use it again at the end of the next sentence.

• All done. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done

Sources

Reception and analysis

• Find a better source regarding Judaism scholars than ref#66 (New York Daily News) or remove.

• Had a working link already. Remove NY Daily News. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Done

Coverage

• No problems here

Neutrality

• No problems here

Stability

• No problems here

GA on hold

If the following is fixed within the next seven days, I will pass the GAN. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, working on the comments now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: can you take a final look? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One last thing- I'd replace ref#62 (People) with a better source or remove it altogether. After that, mission accomplished, 007. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed that part altogether with People reference. Seemed like WP:TRIVIA. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done

GA Pass

Now passing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)