Talk:Up in the Air (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments should be up within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• See below comments on genre and release date
• Parent company Universal Music Group doesn't need to be included when Virgin Records is already listed

Lead

• See below comments on release date
• "garnered significant commercial outcomes internationally"..... reads awkwardly, let's just give names of nations where it charted highly (i.e. "reached the top ten/top twenty in *insert names of nations*")

Recording and composition

• Of the attributed references for "described as an electronic rock song with influences and elements from new wave", only this supports New Wave, and neither mentions "electronic rock" or even "electronic"
• Drums aren't mentioned in the given source
• Four on the floor (music) isn't hyphenated
• The AllMusic link used doesn't mention any pre-chorus or chorus
• "'swift rocker' with 'slight electronic undertones'" can just be one quote
• There is nothing here including "and I"
• "'completely at ease' with Leto's 'risqué lyrics'" can also just be one quote, with "Jared" in place of "Leto"
• "regarded 'Up in the Air' as a"..... try described, and I don't feel the "In an interview with MTV News" bit is needed in this case

Release

• While I personally can tell that the "upcoming album" the source mentioned is Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams, it would help to use a citation explicitly giving the album's name such as this
• Not convinced SpaceX or the science equipment and experiments are necessary to mention
• This doesn't say when or where the rocket launch took place
• "Tom Marshburn" → Thomas Marshburn, and let's just describe him as an "astronaut"
• VyRT isn't mentioned in the given ref
• This is from March 19, 2013, not 18th
• Link Houston
• "made its radio debut on March 18" is misleading and not what Rolling Stone states. In fact, that and MTV News say the song was released March 19th.

Critical reception

• "is 'littered' with choruses that 'will sound epic live'"..... "lyrics" would be a more accurate term
• "Inquirer" should read Philippine Daily Inquirer
• "noticing how the band continues to explore and employ technological advances to diversify their sound and to keep them from becoming too predictable" is close paraphrasing given the source's statement "30 Seconds To Mars continues to explore and employ technological advances to diversify their sound and to keep them from becoming too predictable", please rewrite this in your own words or perhaps turn it into a quote
• "the typical sound of the band" is rather vague; maybe go with "felt the song fell 'flat'" or even "felt it was one of the album's weaker tracks"
• "the melodramatic quality of the band remains as present as ever" reads awkwardly, and also is plagiarized from the source
• "most complex, evocative works"..... technically, the reference uses "most complex, evocative work to date", so it's better to have the quotation mark after "evocative" instead of "works"

Commercial performance

• April 6, 2013 is not mentioned in the given reference, though I did find it here
• When it reached number nine isn't really important compared to the number three peak
• "Following the album release" is misleading for UK and Scotland charts given how the peaks are from March 2013 when the album was released in May 2013.
• "Scottish Singles Chart" should link to Scottish Singles and Albums Charts
• "the high digital sales placed the song at number ten on the national record chart"..... how many copies did it sell in Finland?

Music video

Development

• "On January 30, 2013, Thirty Seconds to Mars posted on their website a casting call for extras and off-road vehicles, announcing that they were preparing to shoot a short film for 'Up in the Air'." and "The video was directed by Jared Leto under his Dr. Seuss-inspired pseudonym Bartholomew Cubbins" are not supported by the given citation. While that can be used to support a February 2013 filming for its video, it doesn't give any specific dates and neither does this. However, I did find commentary on directing here.
• The source used doesn't mention a release date or even Vevo, and isn't really a good source in the first place
• "after weeks of furious editing" is taken directly from the source without attribution, and "furious" doesn't seem really necessary anyway
• This only includes one teaser, not a "series" of them

Concept

• "one of the way"..... ways or a way
• "the subtext of the short film seems to be finding the beauty in the bizarre and the tension of power dynamics"..... more close paraphrasing given "the subtext of the highly conceptual video seems to be finding the beauty in the bizarre, the tension of power dynamics"
• James Montgomery's review is from MTV, not Rolling Stone

Response and accolades

• "Contactmusic" should read Contactmusic.com
• "found 'steamy' the appearance by Dita Von Teese" isn't grammatically correct, go with "found Dita Von Teese's appearance 'steamy'"
• Given how Montgomery doesn't really give any descriptions as to how this is similar to the "Hurricane" video, I'd leave out such comparisons
• See above note on "Inquirer"
• "KBZS" should read "106.3 The Buzz"
• "interesting and mesmerizing to watch" should be paraphrased or put in quotation marks to avoid copyright issues given how its reference uses the exact same words
• When talking about nominations it lost, the winners should be included
• "Kerrang! Award for Best Video" should link to Kerrang! Awards

Live performances

• "shortly before the release of the album" isn't really necessary detail, though this doesn't even specifically indicate that tracks from Love, Lust, Faith and Dreams were scheduled to be performed
• No tour name is given in the attributed source
• "Throughout the first legs of the tour" is unnecessary detail, just say "During the tour"
• "used to choose" → "chose"
• No need to include what fans thought or how early/late the song was included in the setlist
• Not sure the "O Fortana" bit is needed
• "critics responded favorably to the song in a live setting" needs specific examples
• No need for the Kings and Queens bit or day of month for Jimmy Kimmel
• Seems repetitive to use "May 21, 2013" in two consecutive sentences, so let's go with something like "they also"
• None of the festival names are listed here, though it isn't a very good source to begin with

Track listing

• This needs a citation

Charts and certifications

• Charts should have their own section, and so should certifications
• Germany and Netherlands chart links don't seem to be working, though the ultratip link found in "Commercial performance" for their peaks can be used as a replacement for them both
• Unless something is wrong with Billboard's website, the year-end charts linked are basically blank pages with no meaningful content
• "APFV" should link to Association of Venezuelan Phonograph Producers

Release history

• I'm not convinced this is really necessary given the whole "release" section

References

• Two potentially problematic URLs, and I'm not sure "Nottingham Post" is really reliable to begin with
• I will assume good faith that the offline references support their attributed text
• The Huffington Post, PopCrush, and Gigwise aren't really the best sources
• "Oregon Live" should read OregonLive.com without italics
• "KROQ" should read KROQ-FM
• "Scottish Singles Top 40" should read Official Charts Company
• "In" from Drowned in Sound shouldn't be capitalized
• Are "Noise11", "Stature", and "ZDigital" reliable sources? I can't find anything on them in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
• Something seems wrong with the coding for ref#90 (7digital)

Overall

• Well-written?

• Prose quality: Needs work, and there are instances of close paraphrasing/plagiarism
• Manual of Style: Almost

• Verifiable?

• Reference layout: Three citations are malformatted
• Reliable sources: Four questionable sources and three subpar sources
• No original research: Not everything matches the attributed references

• Broad in coverage?

• Major aspects: Not quite
• Focused: Some unnecessary bits

• Neutral?: Seems fine

• Stable?: Nothing of concern

• Illustrated, if possible, by images?

• Appropriate licensing: No copyright violations
• Relevance and captioning: I'm not sure how File:Thirty Seconds to Mars - Up in the Air.ogg or File:Up in the Air music video.jpg are particularly beneficial

• Pass or Fail?: I'm very sorry, but the close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues alone are an automatic fail, and there is too much text not supported by given sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• SNUGGUMS, I've been waiting for this review for over a month. I wonder how could be helpful an immediate fail for a missing quote (different from plagiarism), or unsourced content which includes an actual chorus not called in that way in the source, or because a covert review refers to the band's 2013 tour (which is the Love Lust Faith and Dreams Tour) and not to the Love Lust Faith and Dreams Tour. However, I'll work on the article.--Earthh (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Close paraphrasing and plagiarism are to be avoided in articles. Even without those concerns, the fact that many of the citations did not fully support attributed content really irked me and I could not in good conscience promote an article with so many verification issues or even put it on hold. You are of course free to renominate after fixing up the article. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I'll work on it.--Earthh (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)