Wikipedia

Talk:Billboard (magazine)/GA1

< Talk:Billboard (magazine)
Latest comment: 8 years ago by SNUGGUMS in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago72 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply


This should be interesting. Expect comments within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • What is "healthy" in "healthy advertising revenues" supposed to mean?
  Done I replaced this with "advertised heavily", which is what the source says word for word (since it's just two words in a row, it shouldn't be a copyright issue). I can email a link to the print source material upon request. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Let's give the names of Roger Littleford's sons
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't have a strong opinion, but if I am understanding this piece of feedback correctly, I'm not sure I agree. One sentence explains why their circulation dropped and the following gives some exact numbers. I may be missing something. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
If keeping it, you'll have to resource it because neither citation used for that even say anything about readership levels Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The material I'm citing from is included in The Boston Globe as follows: "the venerable bible of the music industry had been buffeted by a recession rippling through the record business" then near the end it says "The lawsuit comes at difficult time for the magazine, which has felt the effects of a dramatic slump in the record business driven largely by the digital downloading revolution that provided new sources of music." The second source (NYT) says "Over the last decade, Billboard has tried to adapt to changes in the music industry that have decimated its traditional subscriber base." David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
My bad, must've misread something Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Can you elaborate what you mean? I noticed the first source is labeled as a columnist and is from Billboard (the subject of the article), so I don't think it should be used. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's fine to use when the claim being used is not contentious. What I mean is this should note that Hot 100 determines most popular songs based on airplay, sales, and streams (i.e. how often it's played online through things like Spotify or Google Play) while Billboard 200 determines its most popular albums based on sales and streams. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I do disagree, so I at least won't make such an edit personally. There are a lot of dedicated articles about the Billboard music rankings where that level of details seems more appropriate. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "on" doesn't need to be a part of the "Best Books" bit for Cincinnati, a Guide to the Queen City and Its Neighbors
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Infobox
  • It would be better to just use Billboard's official logo as an image rather than a single issue's cover, though I could understand using one in the "News publishing" section
Their logo is already included in the Logo parameter of the infobox and displays just above the cover page photo. All the Featured Articles from Wikiproject Magazines[1] I thumbed through include a cover page in the infobox. I believe this is a pretty de-facto standard to include a cover page photo in the infobox. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I know music is what the magazine primarily focuses on, but since it isn't the sole focus, I'd replace "music industry" in "categories" to "entertainment"
  Done Good point. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 03:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Is "The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group" part of Prometheus Global Media? This only tells me that Billboard was sold to the new company and its owner Todd Boehly
The source says "THR and Billboard will be housed in an entity called The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group" David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Where did Lynne Segall come from? As far as I can tell, the "publisher" field should say Todd Boehly if using any person's name.
Their media kit says the publisher is Lynne Segall on the last page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Lead
  • "Billboard is a music and entertainment media brand owned by The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group"..... an entertainment magazine, and I'm not sure "The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group" should link to Prometheus Global Media
Most of their readers are online, hosting events is also a significant portion of their work, etc. I think media brand is correct. The magazine is just one portion of their operations. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The magazine might have some pieces concerning gossip, but it's definitely not enough to be lead-worthy
Hmm... maybe. I will not trim it directly due to COI concerns. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "It is best known for music charts tracking the most popular songs and albums in different genres"..... let's be specific and mention Billboard Hot 100 and Billboard 200
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
History
Early history
  • It was founded 1894, not 1884
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "out of Cincinnati, Ohio"..... from
  Done I don't really like "from" but I re-phrased it using "in" David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The name of the "African American journalist" should be included, which is James Albert Jackson
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Focus on music
  • "renamed to just Billboard" → "shortened to Billboard"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Changes in ownership
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think the number of publications VNU purchased is necessary, just say something like "VNU acquired Billboard in the deal"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I can only guess Nielsen N.V. is the "namesake of a company" VNU acquired, which should be linked
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "which now owns Billboard and others news interests"..... Actually, "The Hollywood Reporter-Billboard Media Group" just owns Billboard and The Hollywood Reporter
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Recent history
  • "Recent" is subject to change, so let's go with a different section title
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "Billboard" in "alleging Billboard fired them" should be italicized
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Unless I'm missing something, CNN doesn't mention anything about changes in staff and ownership or support the lawsuit involving a "financially-motivated lack of editorial integrity" and emails
  Done I added this source, which must be where I got it from. See the fifth paragraph starting with "On another level..." David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "human resources was given"..... were
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "Since then, the magazine has" → "The magazine has since"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • As far as I can tell, celeb pieces are not mention in here, and it is actually talking about The Hollywood Reporter regarding fashion, though I do find them mentioned for Billboard in this
  Done Added the source that does say celebrity to that spot. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "didn't" should be "did not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "gossipy" sounds somewhat informal; try "featured more gossip"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
News publishing
  Done This is now wiklinked upon first reference in the Lede, due to feedback further up in the review. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Terms can be linked in body after being linked in lead without overlinking, keep that in mind Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ditto as above. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think we need to list out specific genres
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
References
  • The "HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared" ref is mislabeled and should read "Amusement Business"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove ".com" from CNN, which shouldn't be italiczed
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "NPR.com" should read NPR without italics
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The "F." in "Hoffmann, F." should read "Frank"
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Try to find something more credible than New York Post
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Remember the URL! Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 21:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I won't mandate this, though it could help to list the books in a separate section from the in-text references while maintaining the citations to their page numbers, especially when citing multiple pages from a book throughout the article. Ref's #2 and #9 are used for lots of claims, and I doubt one page from those alone is enough to support all of them.
  Not done I know what you mean. Personal pet peeve, I very much dislike those sections, because it requires the reader to do some digging to find out the actual source information. Plus you'll see now that I have page numbers in some of the citations that there is a very narrow page range I'm citing from. I prefer using the {{RP}} template where a lot of individual page number references are needed. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Ref's #4, #5, and #11 are missing page numbers
  Done Sort of done. I have added page numbers for Newsweek and International Directory of Company Histories. Will find the third (I think the numbering of references got changed) David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Ref #4 (The new business journalism : an insider's look at the workings of America's business press) is still missing page numbers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 04:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Overall
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality:   Could be better
  • Manual of Style compliance:   Mostly good
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout:   Some malformatted citations
  • Reliable sources:   One dubious reference
  • No original research:   Not quite
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects:   Almost
  • Focused:   A bit of unnecessary detail
  • Neutral?:   No bias detected
  • Stable?:   Looks good
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  Done I am not that familiar with the special copyright exemptions for cover pages, but I looked up some examples and followed suit. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Relevance and captioning:   I don't think it's necessary to have two cover issues from 2015, may as well just go with the Gaga one because it's more recent.
  Done I went to remove the Beiber one, but it looks like someone already trimmed it. The bottom-half of the page is now pretty bare picture-wise, but I don't have anything I can think of to fill it and just a couple images is fine I think. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Pass or Fail?:   I've looked through this thoroughly and have decided to put it on hold for seven days. Let's see how much can be accomplished within that time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@SNUGGUMS: I have responded to most of the easy stuff. Some of this will require me to re-dig up offline sources and whatnot. I was hoping you could take a quick look so I can archive the undisputed completed items and focus on the others. Also, another editor just added a large block of unsourced text. I can't just revert it due to WP:COI, so I'll chase down someone to do it. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
You've done well so far. I reverted that unsourced addition myself (though I'm not sure what part of WP:COI prevents you from doing so yourself) as it was rather contentious claim involving living people. My main concern at the moment is page numbers for book references. Be sure to also correct the misuse of italics within references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@SNUGGUMS: Just wanted to let you know I completed another round. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply


Comments:

  • In the context that 99.9% of this article was replaced with new content on 23 December 2015, how can this article be regarded as stable? Since the previous version of the article was stuffed in the trash can only three weeks ago, how can we know that the current version represents the consensus of the Wikipedia community? I regard Billboard (magazine) as one of the most unstable articles on English Wikipedia. This aspect is fundamental, and must be resolved by the broader community before an upgrade to GA status can be decided.
  • There are a number of issues regarding images which haven't been addressed so far. We are required to provide a separate fair use rationale every time we upload a non-free files; this has not been done. For examples, see Abbey Road, Pink Floyd, etc. (I forgot to add four tildas) CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Stability is not a concern in this case because that update took place before this was nominated at GAN rather than during the nomination or in between nomination time and when review was initiated. I have already noted that the non-free images have incomplete FUR's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done Regarding the images, I have filled-out their templates using Abbey Road as an example. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Not done Regarding stability, the Good Article criteria states: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. To say a nominator must wait several months to ensure the article is steady is not the intended meaning of stable within the context of GA reviews. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Further Comments

  • I repeat: how can the Wikipedia community have confidence that the article in its current form represents the consensus of the community after such a short time? When the article was nominated is entirely irrelevant! Every article is meant to be the product of such a consensus.
  • I have other concerns. Why have none of the images from the previous version been used in the current version? For instance, an image of the logo which Billboard used in the past would be educational, and it already exists on Commons.
  • The current images in the article are biased towards promoting the current look of the magazine, and therefore suffers from recentism. I agree that the text is free from bias, but the images are another matter. I strongly suggest that the "Justin Bieber" image be removed.
  • There is confusion over the original name of the publication. The image says "Billboard Advertising", the text says "The Billboard Advertiser", and the sources say either of the above, depending on which you look at. This contradiction is not explained, and should be, even it is in a footnote.
  • Why is the word editorial used as a noun in the first sentence of "Focus on music", when the rest of the sentence suggests that it should be an adjective? Should it read "editorial policy"? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hey guys. Just wanted to chirp in and say I haven't forgotten this page. Hoping to circle back this weekend and will take a closer look at the images and other comments then. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 15:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Here is the original version of the article for reference.
  • The original contained this image of a cover page from 1896 in the History section, which was replaced with this one from 1894. I believe the 1894 one is more historically significant than the 1896 one, since it was the very first issue.
  • The original contained this image of an older logo. In my view, old logo images are promotional, unless the company's branding is a significant focus of the source material.
  • In the infobox the original contained a cover page from 2013, which was updated with a more recent cover. It seems appropriate for the infobox to have a recent cover, whereas the History section should have a historical one.
  • There was a screenshot of the Billboard Charts further down the article. As mentioned above, there are numerous Wikipedia articles dedicated to the Billboard Charts and I think that is the best place for it, however I wouldn't oppose having it here, or using another screenshot.
I hope this breakdown and explanation is useful. I think the article will be just great regardless of which image choices are made though and invite CeasarsPalaceDude to boldly make any image changes they feel are appropriate. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the 1894 image is quite historically significant, that the recent cover in the infobox is appropriate, and that the Billboard Charts are best placed in their own articles. Due to a number of recent changes to the article, I now have no issues with images from a GA compliance viewpoint. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Looking through the article again, it appears everything is in shape. Passing this for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billboard_(magazine)/GA1&oldid=1131531993"