I'm doing a check for inline citations, and the article looks excellent so far! Also, there is clearly no edit warring so I'll check that off. I did a copy vio check and there are no copyright violations detected- so I'll check that off too. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry I've taken so long to keep you updated. I have been busy. I'll try to review this ASAP. I must say, it is well-written. The tone is neutral, the sections are adequate length and keep on-topic. It's overall an interesting read! I don't think I knew anything about FtP except for "
Pumped Up Kicks", so it's cool to hear about their writing process and inspiration. Anyways, time to do that source spot-check I said I'd do. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sourcing: sources from the band are ok, per
WP:SELFSOURCE, (see also
WP:PRIMARY), so long as the article is not mostly based on these sources. 8/30 references are from insta/facebook/reddit, which is hardly "mostly", but you still need to be careful. On top of that, there are 2 YouTube videos cited. Not that this is a problem, I just need to double check on what the other sources say and if they are reliable too. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)23:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SupremeLordBagel Apologies for the wait, I have been very busy and I hope this is of no inconvenience to you. I would like to say: the article looks excelent to me, but I am unsure whether it qualifies as a good article per the criteria. I am going to request a second opinion for feedback. Again, apologies for the wait and we'll see where this goes. – The Sharpest Lives (
💬•
✏️•
ℹ️)
21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(this is my first time delivering a second opinion so I apologize if anything is weird). Since the original reviewer hasn't given a specific issue to check for, I'll look over the article and give any comments I have.
Background and development
I would try to paraphrase more in the first paragraph; I can give specific pointers if you would like
The Daily Californian should be italicized in the Music ratings template Done
Lead and infobox
The release sentence should be moved to right after the first sentence. Done
Assuming that at least a few sources in the body use the abbreviation, citations aren't required for In the Darkest of Nights. If no secondary source uses it, I would remove it Done
This lead should be expanded; there's no content about the title/artwork or critical reception, despite both having sections in the body
The lead says that multiple songs revolve around Foster and his wife, but the body only mentions one such track Done
"It produced three singles" is maybe a bit inaccurate since they were are released before the EP. Maybe "it was promoted with three singles" is better? Done
Mark Pontius should be mentioned in the body Done
This is a very surface-level opinion, but if all is fixed I think the reviewer should be able to make a decision on the article. I would like to ask, though, was a spotcheck performed? If not, I would advise doing so; just checking around three sources per section is usually enough for GA.
IanTEB (
talk)
10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
IanTEB and
SupremeLordBagel - I was initially going to post here to take on the source review, but at a cursory glance I see a problem with the sourcing in that many of them are sourced from social media pages. While this is technically in line with
WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I do question whether or not having 20% of the sources be from Instagram or Twitter is acceptable. I would advise that Bagel search for some sort of secondary source for a few of these if they are able to find any. Additionally, BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable per
WP:RS/P; I understand that this is not used for an
exceptional claim, though I would be cautious with using this source in the future. I'd also be cautious about using school newspapers for reviews/some claims - the article uses the Palatinate, and while I can't imagine that a quoted opinion could be seen as contentious, I would personally stay away from such publications in these cases, as nearly any student, regardless of experience, can join them, and they generally lack the sophisticated editorial oversight than established organizations have (this is just from personal experience - I know my university had students as editors. There has not been much visible discussion on using school newspapers as sources on WP, though
this discussion includes the comment "School newspapers are reliable sources for facts, but not for notability").
A spot check on [2], [6], [7], [10], [15], [23], [24], and [28] comes up fine. Not sure of the credibility of Music Talkers, though - it seems that it's just the pet project of some guy, and
its staff list notably has no editors listed, just "news writers" who have seemingly only written for that website aside from one writer who's written for Earmilk.
joeyquism (
talk)
23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm doing a check for inline citations, and the article looks excellent so far! Also, there is clearly no edit warring so I'll check that off. I did a copy vio check and there are no copyright violations detected- so I'll check that off too. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry I've taken so long to keep you updated. I have been busy. I'll try to review this ASAP. I must say, it is well-written. The tone is neutral, the sections are adequate length and keep on-topic. It's overall an interesting read! I don't think I knew anything about FtP except for "
Pumped Up Kicks", so it's cool to hear about their writing process and inspiration. Anyways, time to do that source spot-check I said I'd do. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sourcing: sources from the band are ok, per
WP:SELFSOURCE, (see also
WP:PRIMARY), so long as the article is not mostly based on these sources. 8/30 references are from insta/facebook/reddit, which is hardly "mostly", but you still need to be careful. On top of that, there are 2 YouTube videos cited. Not that this is a problem, I just need to double check on what the other sources say and if they are reliable too. The Sharpest Lives(
the deadliestto lead)23:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SupremeLordBagel Apologies for the wait, I have been very busy and I hope this is of no inconvenience to you. I would like to say: the article looks excelent to me, but I am unsure whether it qualifies as a good article per the criteria. I am going to request a second opinion for feedback. Again, apologies for the wait and we'll see where this goes. – The Sharpest Lives (
💬•
✏️•
ℹ️)
21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)reply
(this is my first time delivering a second opinion so I apologize if anything is weird). Since the original reviewer hasn't given a specific issue to check for, I'll look over the article and give any comments I have.
Background and development
I would try to paraphrase more in the first paragraph; I can give specific pointers if you would like
The Daily Californian should be italicized in the Music ratings template Done
Lead and infobox
The release sentence should be moved to right after the first sentence. Done
Assuming that at least a few sources in the body use the abbreviation, citations aren't required for In the Darkest of Nights. If no secondary source uses it, I would remove it Done
This lead should be expanded; there's no content about the title/artwork or critical reception, despite both having sections in the body
The lead says that multiple songs revolve around Foster and his wife, but the body only mentions one such track Done
"It produced three singles" is maybe a bit inaccurate since they were are released before the EP. Maybe "it was promoted with three singles" is better? Done
Mark Pontius should be mentioned in the body Done
This is a very surface-level opinion, but if all is fixed I think the reviewer should be able to make a decision on the article. I would like to ask, though, was a spotcheck performed? If not, I would advise doing so; just checking around three sources per section is usually enough for GA.
IanTEB (
talk)
10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello
IanTEB and
SupremeLordBagel - I was initially going to post here to take on the source review, but at a cursory glance I see a problem with the sourcing in that many of them are sourced from social media pages. While this is technically in line with
WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I do question whether or not having 20% of the sources be from Instagram or Twitter is acceptable. I would advise that Bagel search for some sort of secondary source for a few of these if they are able to find any. Additionally, BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable per
WP:RS/P; I understand that this is not used for an
exceptional claim, though I would be cautious with using this source in the future. I'd also be cautious about using school newspapers for reviews/some claims - the article uses the Palatinate, and while I can't imagine that a quoted opinion could be seen as contentious, I would personally stay away from such publications in these cases, as nearly any student, regardless of experience, can join them, and they generally lack the sophisticated editorial oversight than established organizations have (this is just from personal experience - I know my university had students as editors. There has not been much visible discussion on using school newspapers as sources on WP, though
this discussion includes the comment "School newspapers are reliable sources for facts, but not for notability").
A spot check on [2], [6], [7], [10], [15], [23], [24], and [28] comes up fine. Not sure of the credibility of Music Talkers, though - it seems that it's just the pet project of some guy, and
its staff list notably has no editors listed, just "news writers" who have seemingly only written for that website aside from one writer who's written for Earmilk.
joeyquism (
talk)
23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply