Talk:Total Eclipse of the Heart/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

{{in progress}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall, this is a solid start to the article, but it's got some big issues throughout that keep it from meeting GA requirements at this point. Comments below:

• General:
  • Overall, I don't think this meets the necessary broadness quality needed for a good article. This is a very popular song of the 80s, and yet there's very little in the way of critical reception or impact, and the development section is disjointed and poorly organized. Judging by the state of the article, you would assume most of the cover versions are actually more important, given how much time is given to them, and things start veering into trivia throughout (mentioning it's sung in Old School—side note, is it really supposed to be the cover version that the character is singing, versus the original?)
• Prose:
  • The prose needs some TLC to get to GA quality. Start off with the lead, where this is 50+ word set of ideas glommed into one sentence: In the United States, the single spent four weeks at the top of the charts, keeping another Steinman penned song "Making Love Out of Nothing at All" by Air Supply from reaching the top spot (a song Tyler would later cover in 1995),[5] and it was Billboard's number-six song of the year for 1983. Throughout awkward phrasing and run-on sentences make the article difficult to read.
  • Steinman believed that CBS were expecting him to write something similar to "It's a Heartache", —this is the first time CBS is mentioned, without explanation.
  • There's no justification for the inclusion of song lyrics in the "background and writing" section of the Kareen Antonn version.
• Media:
  • Given the aforementioned lack of info about songwriting or reception, I don't think File:Total Eclipse of the Heart by Bonnie Tyler.ogg has a strong fair use rationale as required by WP:NFCC. It's pretty much just decorative/illustrative rather than aiding critical commentary about the structure or facets of the song. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• References:
  • There are sections throughout that are apparently unreferenced despite making claims that need to be verified, for example, the "Duet version with Kareen Antonn" or the subsequent music video section; lines throughout (A solo version of the recording was released on her studio album Wings the following year., etc.)
  • There's a source tag on 154, which as a small circular is probably unreliable.
  • Ref 8 is to Metro and should be replaced with something better than a tabloid.
  • Ref 85 (AIRA Charts) links to Dropbox.
  • Ref 145 is to blogspot, unreliable.
  • There's an issue seen throughout the article of using primary sources in a way that I think eschews best practices, for example Ref 15 would be better replaced by a print source rather than some random channel's video of a primary source (since that would demonstrate the event's notability.) Ditto for 100, 111, 143, etc.
  • What makes eMpTyV (158), Rock.co.za (80), Top-france.fr (78), Off the Post (27), MuzHit (115), Ice.spirit.free.fr (150) reliable sources?

Given the issues, I'm failing the GAN presently. I recommend refocusing on sourcing and trimming/copyediting what's there after you've done a deeper dive into sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)