Talk:Ultraviolet (Light My Way)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The main thing I reacted to was the heading "Composition". This gives the impression that the section gives insight into the creative process behind the song, which it barely does at all. I think a better heading would be "Lyrics and interpretation". I'll change this, but feel free to object.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The language is very good, I found nothing to complain about.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The one thing I reacted to here was the use of sources with a religious slant. It is true that U2 is a band that uses a lot of religious imagery, but these sources can give the impression of bias, and the publishing houses are not necessarily the most academic, reliable ones. The use is not excessive though, and it should not prevent the article from obtaining GA status.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A bit much on the lyrics perhaps, and less on the music, but at least both are properly covered.

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):

   Impressively comprehensive use of images and other media (sound, that is).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A good article, I'm happy to make this a GA.

Thanks very much for the review and the pass. Regarding the section title in question, it can't be just "Lyrics and interpretation" because the section deals with the song's music as well (in the first and last paragraphs). The creative process is dealt with partly in the "Recording" section ... to be honest I'm not thrilled with the section titles either, but there's another editor on the U2 project who's adamant that the titles be the way they are, and I gave up trying to do otherwise. I've changed this particular title to "Composition and interpretation", maybe that will be an acceptable compromise. Regarding the treatment of religion, I've found with U2 you tend to get either sources who mostly ignore it (and treat U2 as they do any other very successful pop artist) or sources who use it as their primary focal point. I don't think the latter sources are biased, per se, just prone to a particular lens through which to see the group. I think that, especially in the "Live performances" section, the article gives plenty of weight to non-religious reception of the song as well. Anyway, thanks again for the review. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)