Talk:Fire in My Heart/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cavie! Aren't you a lucky son of a gun today? WEll, well I will be reviewing this article for GA. Hope to interract with you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Basic review

• Cavie, one thing I noticed regarding the article is that some MoS violations are going on. Especially in the references. For eg: Allmusic, Pitchfork, BBC etc are all online sources, and should appear as one in the references, but they appear italicized. Please correct them. Oh, don't forget to add publishers, some of them ask to add them.

   Done

• En-dash between page numbers.

   Done

• A consistency in the dates. You use both "yyyy-mm-dd" and "dd mm yyyy" format.

   Done That was fun!!?

Prose and other reviews

Lead

• Fire in My Heart" is the tenth single by the Super Furry Animals --> I think here only you can clarify who SFA are, like UK recording group etc. Most of the times, people don't click on the wikilink to find out about the artist if they are solely reading the song.

   Done

• shows the Super Furry Animals waiting to leave the planet Mars having played a concert there --> shows the Super Furry Animals waiting to leave the planet Mars, having played a concert there.

   Done

• It was the second single to be taken from the Guerrilla album and --> Please rephrase, the sentence has a sudden beginning and Guerilla is being introduced without any context. Try something like "It was the second single released from their 1999 studio album Guerilla"

   Done

Themes

• a name which singer Gruff Rhys felt was more poignant --> Again, here you have to establish who Gruff is, like "a name which Gruff Rhys, lead singer of the band, felt was more poignant "

   Done

• The song is "soul advice" and is about "all kinds of people in your life". --> Was there any explanation given for the term soul advice, because as far as I can tell, it is not a frequently used term.

  Afraid not.

• The B-side doesnot appear on the infobox. Any reason for its exclusion?

  I don't add b-sides to infoboxes as I think it looks strange when the track listings are different for different formats etc.

Composition

• The song begins with Gruff Rhys --> "Gruff Rhys" or just "Rhys"?

  I always spell out people's name in full the first time they are mentioned in a new section.

• Rhys is joined by sparse drums, a synthesizer, organ and harmony backing vocals in the second verse which immediately follows the first at 31 seconds. --> A live singer being joined by instruments sound kinda wrong. Maybe "Rhys' vocals are accompanied by..."

   Done

Release and reception

• You talk about the song charting on the UK singles chart at 25, why don't you elaborate it more. You can talk about which position it entered, then the peak and then how many weeks it was on the chart, and if it charted on the year end chart. Its a 1999 song so information will be available on both Chartstats and The Official Charts Company.

  I don't think there's a lot to say to be honest. It was in the Top 75 for 3 weeks but that's all I can find.

• As I learned at FAC, Melody Maker can't review the song, someone from the magazine does it. So name the person.
• This is true for all the other reviews.

  Funnily enough J.Milburn has mentioned this in his review of "Northern Lites" but I've never heard this before and I disagree - The NME even changes reviewers scores so they more accurately reflect the views of the magazine. See below for a copy of that discussion:

It isn't Mojo or Q, it's the reviewers, writing for the publications. Same with the newspapers, and so on. J Milburn (talk)

I would disagree, the reviews are thought of as being the opinion of the magazine not just the writer. This is how the magazines themselves refer to reviews and how pretty much every book I've read talks about critical reaction. Occasionally reviewers names will be mentioned if they are well known (Lester Bangs, Nick Kent etc.) but even then the opinion is that of the magazine the review appeared in. Cavie78 (talk)

Huh. It just seems slightly ridiculous to me- you wouldn't write (using the book closest to me) "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland describes the species as inedible" you would say "Roger Phillips describes the species as inedible". J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I would say the former but that's another story! When albums are released they frequently have stickers on with reviews - they never give the name of the reviewer though, only the magazine the review came from. We also have review templates which only have fields for publications not reviewers. Cavie78 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Review templates and review stickers are fine. No publication would firstly promote the name of the particular authors, rather than the name of their publication. And here you make use of well-known publications like NME, MM etc. Their reviewers are probably much more notable than you think. So, no I still disagree. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of disagreeing - this is established practice, see here, here and here for examples. There is a, soon to be deleted (good times), category for NME writers The magazine has been going since the 50s but there are only 37 writers included. Of these, the vast majority haven't written for the NME since the 80s and a few are notable for other things e.g. Andrew Collins, Chrissie Hynde and Bob Stanley. Cavie78 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK fine, I can understnad for NME, but what of others? Surely they don't throw around their writers? If you are saying so then I'm afraid this raises a question on the validity of the magazines themselves. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

→:Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean now Legolas. All I'm saying is that it is perfectly acceptable to state that reviews are opinions of the magazines they come from rather than having to state every writer's name in the prose. It's not specific to the NME, it's universal thing. I've found a better example here The Guardian mentions reviews in several magazines, and one of the newspaper's own reviews, yet only mentions Charles Shaar Murray by name. Cavie78 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to agree to disagree on this issue Cavie. If you were to take up any article where this issue is there to FA, make sure that this is addressed. I won't let that stand in the way of its GAR. Just the image left. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Accolades table

• The addition of the country column is unnecessary I feel. Its kinda universally known that BBC & NME = UK.

  I see what you mean but I think it's worth having for those who don't know, particularly with the NME which I doubt is as well known as the BBC.

Music video

• The music video image tempted me to watch it. I had to YouTube it. :D

  Lol - maybe my Super Furries obsession is finally rubbing off on other Wikipedians?!!

• Gruff Rhys --> Rhys?

  See above.

Tracklisting

• Fine. The catalogue nos on the releases acts as their source.

Personnel

• Can you add a link to the liner notes for the single or the album? As per present song GAs, no section can be unsourced.

   Done

Charts

• Have you checked whether the song charted in Scotland or not? Or in Ireland?

  It didn't chart in Ireland. Scotland is covered by the UK charts.

Media review

• File:Sfa-fireinmyheart.jpg – Fine. NFC rationale good.
• File:Super Furry Animals - Fire In My Heart.ogg – Nice sample.
• File:Fire-In-My-Heart-SFA-Screenshot.jpg – I'm afraid this is the only image I have a problem with. The description of the image alone in the article makes it fail WP:NFCC#1, as it describes everything that the picture shows, making a free alternative exist.

  I think a screenshot of the music video is just as valid as the cover art for identification purposes. The prose might describe the video but the aliens in particular could look very different than they actually do if a reader simply used their imagination based on my description.

  Good, but lets not make it that obvious shall we? You can do this by reducing the amount of prose below the picture. I checked woth FAC non-free content reviewers like Jappalang and Fasach Nua, they all agree that images of such kind as the one above, fails WP:NFCC#1, because its the whole description itself which makes a free alternative available, in this case the prose becomes the free alternative. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Does it look any better now? Cavie78 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  Of course, this is perfect Cavie, the image passes NFCC now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright Cavieboy! Here's hoping you wipe the issues off faster than a kleenex. On hold for seven days. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cavie for addressing all the issues, because I have gone and placed the article as GA. Congratulations. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)