Wikipedia

Talk:In the Darkest of Nights, Let the Birds Sing/GA1

< Talk:In the Darkest of Nights, Let the Birds Sing
Latest comment: 3 months ago by The Sharpest Lives in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago20 comments4 people in discussion
Passed. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 20:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: SupremeLordBagel (talk · contribs) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 03:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply


  • Sorry I've taken so long to keep you updated. I have been busy. I'll try to review this ASAP. I must say, it is well-written. The tone is neutral, the sections are adequate length and keep on-topic. It's overall an interesting read! I don't think I knew anything about FtP except for "Pumped Up Kicks", so it's cool to hear about their writing process and inspiration. Anyways, time to do that source spot-check I said I'd do. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Improvements

edit
  • Sourcing: sources from the band are ok, per WP:SELFSOURCE, (see also WP:PRIMARY), so long as the article is not mostly based on these sources. 8/30 references are from insta/facebook/reddit, which is hardly "mostly", but you still need to be careful. On top of that, there are 2 YouTube videos cited. Not that this is a problem, I just need to double check on what the other sources say and if they are reliable too. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @SupremeLordBagel Apologies for the wait, I have been very busy and I hope this is of no inconvenience to you. I would like to say: the article looks excelent to me, but I am unsure whether it qualifies as a good article per the criteria. I am going to request a second opinion for feedback. Again, apologies for the wait and we'll see where this goes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer checklist

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Second opinion from IanTEB

edit

(this is my first time delivering a second opinion so I apologize if anything is weird). Since the original reviewer hasn't given a specific issue to check for, I'll look over the article and give any comments I have.

Background and development

  • I would try to paraphrase more in the first paragraph; I can give specific pointers if you would like
  Done. If there's anything in that paragraph I could improve upon, please let me know! SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 20:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "Of the split, Foster said" - I would change Foster to "frontman Mark Foster"   Done
  • I think the second paragraph is very good!   Thank you

Release and promotion

  • These sections should be placed after composition   Done
  • I would specify the exact release date within "The EP was released the following month"   Done
  • I would also specify that the Wiltern Theatre shows were in December   Done

Composition and songs

  • Link Julia Garner   Done
  • "when Isom Innis" - "when keyboardist Isom Innis"   Done
  • Link trip-hop   Done

Critical reception

  • The Daily Californian should be italicized in the Music ratings template   Done

Lead and infobox

  • The release sentence should be moved to right after the first sentence.   Done
  • Assuming that at least a few sources in the body use the abbreviation, citations aren't required for In the Darkest of Nights. If no secondary source uses it, I would remove it   Done
  • This lead should be expanded; there's no content about the title/artwork or critical reception, despite both having sections in the body
  • The lead says that multiple songs revolve around Foster and his wife, but the body only mentions one such track   Done
  • "It produced three singles" is maybe a bit inaccurate since they were are released before the EP. Maybe "it was promoted with three singles" is better?   Done
  • Mark Pontius should be mentioned in the body   Done

This is a very surface-level opinion, but if all is fixed I think the reviewer should be able to make a decision on the article. I would like to ask, though, was a spotcheck performed? If not, I would advise doing so; just checking around three sources per section is usually enough for GA. IanTEB (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello IanTEB and SupremeLordBagel - I was initially going to post here to take on the source review, but at a cursory glance I see a problem with the sourcing in that many of them are sourced from social media pages. While this is technically in line with WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I do question whether or not having 20% of the sources be from Instagram or Twitter is acceptable. I would advise that Bagel search for some sort of secondary source for a few of these if they are able to find any. Additionally, BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable per WP:RS/P; I understand that this is not used for an exceptional claim, though I would be cautious with using this source in the future. I'd also be cautious about using school newspapers for reviews/some claims - the article uses the Palatinate, and while I can't imagine that a quoted opinion could be seen as contentious, I would personally stay away from such publications in these cases, as nearly any student, regardless of experience, can join them, and they generally lack the sophisticated editorial oversight than established organizations have (this is just from personal experience - I know my university had students as editors. There has not been much visible discussion on using school newspapers as sources on WP, though this discussion includes the comment "School newspapers are reliable sources for facts, but not for notability").
A spot check on [2], [6], [7], [10], [15], [23], [24], and [28] comes up fine. Not sure of the credibility of Music Talkers, though - it seems that it's just the pet project of some guy, and its staff list notably has no editors listed, just "news writers" who have seemingly only written for that website aside from one writer who's written for Earmilk. joeyquism (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
IanTEB and joeyquism, thank you for your very helpful feedback. I've tried to improve the article per your suggestions and hope my efforts are satisfactory.
As for the use of school newspapers, I thought that the use of Palatinate and The Daily Californian was acceptable, as both publications have received commendations for their journalism and seem to be generally reliable (plus the claims weren't contentious). I do agree with you, though, that it is generally good to find more established sources. I've tried my best to replace some of the social media refs. SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey @SupremeLordBagel, sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. It looks a little better as far as sourcing goes, but one thing that's sticking out to me is the Reddit AMA. I am not sure if these count as interviews that are suitable for Wikipedia. WP:RSREDDIT states that:

"Interview responses written by verified interviewees on the r/IAmA subreddit are primary sources, and editors disagree on their reliability. The policy on the use of sources about themselves applies."

The policy in question is WP:ABOUTSELF, which is something that I myself would invoke for the usage of interviews from deprecated sources like Rate Your Music, but I am not sure of the quality of a Reddit AMA here as I feel as if they lack structure. Anybody can register a Reddit account and ask a ridiculous question which could then be answered; in other words, there isn't any editorial oversight on r/IAmA. I would be more willing to pass this if you are able to justify its usage (which seems to be quite minimal to begin with - you may also want to consider if this detail is that useful) in a reply. Apologies for the pedantry or any offense I may have caused - I come with good intentions here. joeyquism (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You make a good point. I don't think the claim was large enough to try and justify, so I've removed it and the accompanying reference. Let me know if there's anything else you think I could improve upon. SupremeLordBagel (talk to me) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for taking forever to get back to you on this once again, SupremeLordBagel - I guess I should have watchlisted this one. That should be good enough for me; well done! The Sharpest Lives, feel free to pass this article. joeyquism (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, passing! And thanks for the 2nd opinion joey. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 20:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_the_Darkest_of_Nights,_Let_the_Birds_Sing/GA1&oldid=1237644576"