Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/First Time (Lifehouse song)/1

First Time (Lifehouse song) edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: no action There have been no comments since 28 August. The article has poor prose, e.g. "First Time" is as a pop-rock song that contains adult alternative; In January 2008, Lifehouse performed the song as part of a set list on the PBS show Soundstage
; n September 2006, Lifehouse started writing songs in the studio for Who We Are, and recorded most of the songs the day they were written at Coles' Ironworks Studios in Los Angeles.; He further noted how he appreciated recording songs with many takes to capture the initial thought of a song. Could certainly do with severe copy-editing throughout, also with more substantial coverage from RS - perhaps this will be forthcoming in future years. Currently there isn't much there apart from quotes and chart listings, hardly broad coverage. The article should only be re-nominated when these concerns have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this article up for good article reassessment because it was failed in the last nomination and I believe it meets the good article criteria. The last reviewer believed that it did not meet the criteria for being broad in its coverage, while I disagreed with this even after expanding the article. Therefore, I want multiple opinions to show for certain whether this article meets all of the good article criteria. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last sentence in the review seems odd to me. The reviewer says that it is (apparently) not possible for the article to be broad in coverage, apparently meaning that zero reliable sources discuss things that the reviewer wants discussed in the article. "Broad in coverage" is usually interpreted as meaning "covers whatever the sources do" rather than "covers whatever the reviewer wishes the sources would". Have I perhaps misunderstood the complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't see anything wrong with article. Also it may be quicker to withdraw the GAR and renominate. Szzuk (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Based on the Wait Your Turn GAR, my interpretation of criterion #3a is not in line with the community's. I agree that renominating the article is the way to go, because I did not give a full review before failing its GAN. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I recommended GAR earlier – I forgot that my review didn't go beyond scrutiny of #3a. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.