Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lovebird (song)/1
- The following is an archived discussion of a good article reassessment. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. No further edits should be made to this page.
Lovebird (song) edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: I really don't understant why the article was nominated to GAR and GAN at the same time. Assuming the article was listed first at GAR, and that it is a GA now, I think this is a listed result. If this happens again please close the GAR first. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and co-nominator — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] believe that the article met the criteria on GA/1 which was failed. My main concern is that I explained multiple times about about what an 'Impact day' release is to the reviewer, J Milburn (talk), who repeatedly did not understand, which was one of his main reasons for failing. Also see this conversation which details it further. — AARON • TALK 13:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply, I still feel that the "impact day" release issue is incredibly ambiguous in the article, which says both that the song "was not released as a digital download single", and that the song is the artist's "her first [single] to not chart in the UK". If an "impact day" release is a kind of single release, this needs to be made clearer in the article. Other contradictions/ambiguities are present- is the target of the lyrics in a relationship with the singer, or not? Both are separately implied- that the target is a former and current partner. Further, there were other problems with the article, such as irrelevant details about what the artist was wearing at a single interview, and poor writing ("The lyrics of "Lovebird" focus on how Lewis informs her lover", "the reason cited for its commercial failure was due to"). I became exasperated at problems remaining (and new problems appearing) every time I looked at the article, and I will note that my closure was endorsed by another editor. Should consensus suggest that the article is ready for GA status, or should the article be improved through this process, I am of course happy to see it promoted. J Milburn (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "impact day" should be explained in a phrase or an explanatory footnote in the text; I'm not clear on this term either, and I didn't have immediate success Googling it. I also agree that the details of the interview outfit needed to be cut (which they now have been). I'm more okay with the present/past lover ambiguity, since that ambiguity's arguably in both the source and song as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been through and changed a few of the main concerns. Could you both comment please? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those specific concerns are sufficiently addressed, but at first glance at this, there's a misspelled word and some leftover junk text ("sold had sold"). [1] My two cents is that now the issues from the previous review have been largely/wholly addressed, this is ready for to be renominated for a new full review. Does that make sense to you, J Milburn? Thanks to everybody involved in improving this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems reasonable. Problems from my review still remain ("The lyrics of "Lovebird" focus on how Lewis informs her lover"; question of the relationship between Lewis and the putative "lover" in the lyrics; debut vs début; the weirdness about what she wears in the video) but these could realistically be dealt with before a new reviewer is found, or taken up by the new reviewer, who, if worth their salt, will be checking the previous review anyway. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those specific concerns are sufficiently addressed, but at first glance at this, there's a misspelled word and some leftover junk text ("sold had sold"). [1] My two cents is that now the issues from the previous review have been largely/wholly addressed, this is ready for to be renominated for a new full review. Does that make sense to you, J Milburn? Thanks to everybody involved in improving this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been through and changed a few of the main concerns. Could you both comment please? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that "impact day" should be explained in a phrase or an explanatory footnote in the text; I'm not clear on this term either, and I didn't have immediate success Googling it. I also agree that the details of the interview outfit needed to be cut (which they now have been). I'm more okay with the present/past lover ambiguity, since that ambiguity's arguably in both the source and song as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uphold original review, suggest renomination of revised version Adding this summary of my above recommendation for convenience in a future close. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.