Talk:This Love (Maroon 5 song)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:This Love (Maroon 5 song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Some spots where the prose needs a bit of massaging

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A bit more on the video controversy needed

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   A bit more information in one fair use rationale

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific comments

• General:
  • Fair use rationale for the uncensored and censored video is the only image concern. I'd prefer to see a bit more robust rationale, along the lines of the cover art. Also a bit more on where the censored video was shown and what the reaction to the uncensored version was would help beef up the section and make the inclusion of the image more relevant to the article.
    • I think I got it.
  • There is information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. Specifically "The song was written by frontman Adam Levine and keyboardist Jesse Carmichael, for their debut album Songs About Jane (2002)." The section on background only states that Levine wrote the song, not Carmichael, nor what album it was for.
    • I read somewhere that both Levine and Carmichael wrote the song, but I forgot what site it was. So, removed.
      • We've still got information in the lead that's not in the body. Suggest adding a sentence to the Background section, probably the first sentence of the first paragraph, something like ""This Love" was a single off of Maroon's debut album Songs About Jane, that was released in 2002."Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Done.
• Lead:
  • "The song's lyrics are based on Adam Levine's break-up with a former girlfriend, which he admits that the relationship was ending." What is the second clause trying to say? I don't understand what it means at all.
    • What it's trying to say that the song is based on a break-up with a former girlfriend. Hope that makes sense.
      • Perhaps it should be rewritten to be more clear to the reader? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm coming up blank. Do you have a suggestion?
  • ""This Love" was well-received by music critics, who noted the track's general sound." The critics noted the general sound how? Did they like it? Hate it? Just noting it is not particularly relevant.
    • I think I got it.
• Background:
  • First sentence "... Maroon 5 vocalist Adam Levine revealed that he wrote the song the day he and his girlfriend broke up and moved away." The last bit implies that they BOTH moved away. I suspect you mean "... Maroon 5 vocalist Adam Levine revealed that he wrote the song the day his girlfriend moved away when they broke up." or something similar.
    • Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks.
• Music and lyrics:
  • "Loftus also noted that the lyrics "I tried my best to feed her appetite / To keep her coming every night / So hard to keep her satisfied", as the band's "music grooved on a greater sexual charge"."... I got lost somewhere along there. Loftus noted what about these specific lyrics?
    • Fixed.
  • First paragraph, last two sentences: "The introduction of "This Love" features a piano-led strut. Maroon 5 have admitted that "This Love" is a prime pop-rock song." I suggest moving them up in the paragraph, integrating them possibly like "The music featured in the song has a lot more rock-guitar crunch,(ref) and features a piano-led strut.(ref). It's considered a soulful pop/rock song,(ref)(ref) and the band admits that it's a prime pop-rock song.(ref)"
    • Done.
• Chart performance:
  • "The single was officially solicited to radio in North America.." is jargon. I gather this means it was released to radio play? Might explain what "officially solicited" means.
    • I think I got it.
  • ""This Love" reached the top ten in less than thirteen European countries." Why is 'less than thirteen' significant? Why not just name how many it reached the top ten in?
    • I think I got it.
      • Now it reads ""This Love" reached the top ten in European countries." which is sorta "Huh?" Mention how many countries it reached the top ten in? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I think I got it. If not, I think it should be removed.
• Music video:
  • "The video combines a performance footage from the band in a courtyard in a Mexico soundstage." Generally, when you say "combines" I expect to see two separate things being combined, but the sentence only has one thing that's being combined (the 'perfomance footage from the band in a courtyard in a Mexico soundstage." Also some small grammar issues... Should be "combines performance footage" and "Mexican"
    • I think I got it.
      • You got the grammar but still not seeing what TWO parts are being combined, there is only one thing mentioned "...performance footage from the band in a courtyard in a Mexican soundstage." The "from the band" and "in a courtyard" and "in a Mexican soundstage" are all dependent phrases describing the footage, there is no other subject to be combined with the footage. Do you mean that it combined the footage from the courtyard with the parts with Levine breaking up with a woman? If so, you need to combine the two sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I've combined the sentences.
  • I'd like to see more from the folks raising the controversy, not just the band members' reaction to it.
    • I've done a lot of Google searches, but have come up empty. But, the sources that are in the article brought up the issue that the video was controversial, that's all I got. Though, I did found these ---> [1], [2], refs. not sure if its helpful.
      • I took the liberty of adding in a bit of connecting text to make it a bit plainer. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that the first quote in the third paragraph isn't really about the controvery, it's about the shooting of the video? If so, should be moved up to the second paragraph where you're discussing the shooting of the intimate scenes.
    • Done.
  • The "That was ridiculous" quote has not context because we don't have any statements about the controversy, so we don't know what exactly Levine felt was ridiculuous.
    • Removed.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. All in all a very nice article, just needs a bit of polish and bit more on the controversy. Thanks for the enjoyable read! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth, for the review, I appreciate it. I hope I got your concerns, if not, I'll continue to get your issues resolved. I left strikes on the stuff I got. The others I left blank, though with a follow-up to your concerns. Hope that's alright. Also, thank you for the enjoyable read comment, I'm flattered. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on This Love (Maroon 5 song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402133622/http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/maroon_5/news_feature_040308/ to http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/maroon_5/news_feature_040308/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229075326/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/maroon5/albums/album/321138/review/5941040/songs_about_jane to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/maroon5/albums/album/321138/review/5941040/songs_about_jane

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on This Love (Maroon 5 song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818180304/http://entertainment.ivillage.com/features/0,,bnmv0rcm,00.html?dst=rss%7CMSNBC_Today_Main to http://entertainment.ivillage.com/features/0,,bnmv0rcm,00.html?dst=rss%7CMSNBC_Today_Main

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Genre

A pointless edit war has been on-going here for a bit.

Suggestions/demands have been made that we:

• "Stop this shit and use the original" - The "original" was "Pop/Rock".[3] Whether or not that is correct is a separate question.
• "Are you an admin?" - While an admin is more likely to make an argument based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, their opinion on the matter is no more binding that anyone else's.
• "DON'T BE STUPID AND GET YOUR EARS CLEAN, you don't know this song and stop using a dummy account and use a real wikipedia account" - The personal attack is not acceptable and beyond pointless. Knowing the song is irrelevant (I'm not entirely sure I've ever heard it). Editing anonymously, unless being used to avoid scrutiny or evade a block is perfectly acceptable and has no bearing on the question.
• "But you should provide reliable source for additional genre." - Yes, that's one option. We'll get back to that.
• "don't be fucking stupid, even though it has a funky beat, it's still considered as funk rock, don't use your dummy account" - Again, the personal attack is not acceptable. If you continue, it is a reason to block you from editing. That it is "considered" one thing is part of a possible argument, depending on who is making that argument. Again, anonymous editing is fine.

There's plenty more, I'm sure.

Per WP:GWAR (and various policies and guidelines), genre in an article should be based on one of two things. The gold standard is citations to independent reliable sources. If Rolling Stone, Spin, the New York Times and Robert Christgau say a song is neo-Ukranian harmonic death metal, that is what the article should say. That you are certain it is something else is immaterial.

If independent reliable sources cannot be found (or do not exist) saying what the song is, a consensus established on the article's talk page is sufficient, though easily changed through further discussion or finding sources. If several of us discuss and establish a consensus that the song is a ragtime funeral dirge, that is sufficient. If later discussion establishes something else or someone finds sources, the earlier consensus is irrelevant.

Discuss the issue. If you feel someone is edit warring, socking or otherwise abusing the system, address that issue through the usual channels: WP:EW, WP:SOCK, WP:ANI, etc. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)