This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Levels (Avicii song) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Levels (Avicii song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
it says its the base for flo rida's song "good feeling" but its released after. Not too sure because in good feeling theres a dubstep like part in it. can some one please confirm. kUCEEZ 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuceez ( talk • contribs)
The song can be found on page Levels more specifically HERE. Pablodiego15 ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be info on the music video? Here is the official music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovdm2yX4MA. -- YellowCakeUranium ( talk) 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: K. Peake ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
There has been some debate about whether this article can be nominated or not but the nominator has made enough edits to it for submission; looks quite messy on first glance, but I will analyse further soon to see how it fares against the GA criteria. -- K. Peake 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, especially after you were dedicated to push the nomination through, but even though I love this song I am going to have to fail the nomination already because it is way too far from meeting the criteria. Clearly, this article is not broad in its coverage, even lacking a Commercial performance section for such a big hit and also only having two lists when more accolades obviously exist; there is not even a sub-section for them currently! The prose is messy too, with some sentences reading awkwardly and other ones being used for entire paragraphs, which looks horribly short for a full one especially on big monitors. The lead is not only poorly written but includes citations, which should not be there as that information is supposed to be properly backed up in the body of the article. Maybe if this article has been expanded and written better at a later date then I will take it on for another review, though do not feel afraid to post any messages to me in the meantime. -- K. Peake 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Ultimate Boss ( talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Because of your GA reviews, I will review your article! I'm not in school tomorrow, so I'll have a review done in a couple of hours!
The Ultimate Boss (
talk) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss So umm, when are you going to review this article? Lazman321 ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to do this, but I have to quickfail this, there are way too many unreliable sources and a lot of the ref formats are wrong. I recommend you ask for another peer review and copyedit. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 02:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Footlessmouse ( talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I will review this over the next couple of days.
Footlessmouse (
talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I want to officially note the backlog of two previous GA nominations and two peer reviews all in the last 90 days. This review may take longer than usual as I will have to take those and progress into consideration. The article will ultimately be judged only by the criteria, however, in the state it will be in just before the review is closed out. Footlessmouse ( talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of previous reviews
|
---|
@ Kyle Peake: given your prior involvement with these reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments or critiques you may have for the current state of the article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Summary of pervious reviews within last 90 days. I will not sign each note in this section—it exists for the sole purpose of my review of previous editorial reviews. Please do not modify this section or any of its subsections, if anyone has a comment, please start a new section below. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination disputeOn 3 August 2020, there was a small dispute on whether User:Lazman321 should be allowed to nominate the article:
Issues raised:
GR1 and PR2GR1 was quick-failed by K. Peake, who also reviewed the article more thoroughly for PR2. PR2 includes a long list of problems needing addressing, each of which I will verify has been resolved or is not necessary.
GR2Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA2 was failed for unreliable sources, some of which I believe the reviewer was too quick to label, as a reliable source depends on the statement being sourced. Otherwise, editors made an attempt to fix the problem here prior re-nominating the page. |
Resolved 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
After each of these, please create a new line starting with one of **{{done}}, **{{not done}}, or **{{question}} and give an explanation if necessary and sign. I will have many many more comments and suggestions, but I will give you a chance to work on these in the meantime.
|
Resolved 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I am finished with critically reviewing the prose of the article. I see no major complaints outside of what I have listed above and what has already been resolved. I am now going over references in detail and will double check the previous PR and GR for extra points. Footlessmouse ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am done with my initial review, I have found many problems, and some were already addressed by the nominator in a timely manner. I have just found many more problems which I will give the nominator a chance to fix. In the meantime, I am officially asking for a second opinion for a few reasons. This is outside my area of editing expertise, so it would be great to have input from editors familiar with song articles, I am new to this process having just dove in this month, and the history of previous reviews and amount of problems raised. I am especially not familiar with reliability criteria for the various websites used to document the charts, though as they only document charts I presume they are good enough. Comments from independent editors are most welcome. If you have a comment, please leave under this section with a new fourth level heading (i.e. 4 equal signs before and after section title) Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the certifications table and I found some problems, the table is automatic in various cases. However, the nominator didn't take a look at that and decided to copy and post several link, with many of them not working properly, wrong artists and so on. I have fixed it myself. Regarding you concerns on the charts, the Brazilian one with the PDF seems not to be working properly, so either remove it or find a replacement. The rest is fine since the providers are the offical, see here for a list of them and reliable sources, some accessdates are missing in said table. I would ask to remove the Mega Top 50 as it is not listed on the preivous list I mentioned and it seems its data only considers a couple of radio stations. Tables are missing header, and the release history is missing the label. iTunes is publisher, not work. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kyle Peake: Do you have any comments before this GA is closed. I will go back over it one more time to make sure, but nom has fixed all issues I am aware of. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Lazman321: Thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. This article will need quite a bit of help before it can be tried for Featured Article status, as the article must obey ALL MOS guidelines and be "thorough". That being said, the GA guidelines are relatively lax and require only a few of the guidelines be followed. One note about the GA criteria that is important is that it does not have to be "thorough" but it must discuss to some extent just the major topics discussed in the sources. That is a relatively low bar to climb over. The article as it stands right now is only 13 kB of prose, which is very short for an article over such a popular topic. So there is definitely a lot of room for expansion and improvement. I would personally rewrite a few of the paragraphs, but taking that into account is against the GA review guidelines, which require only the article is clear and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. Due to this, I have determined that at this point in time, the GA requirements are met in this article. Great job on the article and congratulations on getting the GA pushed through. Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 16:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
The wording on ALT1 is a bit fuzzy (contractions and "the thing") but since all hooks are the same, I am passing the nom and ask for ALT0 or ALT2 to be promoted. Regards,
IceWelder [
✉] 09:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The tempo of the song seems to be 126 BPM, not 127. Rohnx ( talk) 01:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Levels (Avicii song) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Levels (Avicii song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
it says its the base for flo rida's song "good feeling" but its released after. Not too sure because in good feeling theres a dubstep like part in it. can some one please confirm. kUCEEZ 03:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuceez ( talk • contribs)
The song can be found on page Levels more specifically HERE. Pablodiego15 ( talk) 21:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Levels (Avicii song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be info on the music video? Here is the official music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ovdm2yX4MA. -- YellowCakeUranium ( talk) 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: K. Peake ( talk · contribs) 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
There has been some debate about whether this article can be nominated or not but the nominator has made enough edits to it for submission; looks quite messy on first glance, but I will analyse further soon to see how it fares against the GA criteria. -- K. Peake 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to do this, especially after you were dedicated to push the nomination through, but even though I love this song I am going to have to fail the nomination already because it is way too far from meeting the criteria. Clearly, this article is not broad in its coverage, even lacking a Commercial performance section for such a big hit and also only having two lists when more accolades obviously exist; there is not even a sub-section for them currently! The prose is messy too, with some sentences reading awkwardly and other ones being used for entire paragraphs, which looks horribly short for a full one especially on big monitors. The lead is not only poorly written but includes citations, which should not be there as that information is supposed to be properly backed up in the body of the article. Maybe if this article has been expanded and written better at a later date then I will take it on for another review, though do not feel afraid to post any messages to me in the meantime. -- K. Peake 14:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Ultimate Boss ( talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Because of your GA reviews, I will review your article! I'm not in school tomorrow, so I'll have a review done in a couple of hours!
The Ultimate Boss (
talk) 06:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The Ultimate Boss So umm, when are you going to review this article? Lazman321 ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to do this, but I have to quickfail this, there are way too many unreliable sources and a lot of the ref formats are wrong. I recommend you ask for another peer review and copyedit. The Ultimate Boss ( talk) 02:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Footlessmouse ( talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I will review this over the next couple of days.
Footlessmouse (
talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I want to officially note the backlog of two previous GA nominations and two peer reviews all in the last 90 days. This review may take longer than usual as I will have to take those and progress into consideration. The article will ultimately be judged only by the criteria, however, in the state it will be in just before the review is closed out. Footlessmouse ( talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Summary of previous reviews
|
---|
@ Kyle Peake: given your prior involvement with these reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments or critiques you may have for the current state of the article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Summary of pervious reviews within last 90 days. I will not sign each note in this section—it exists for the sole purpose of my review of previous editorial reviews. Please do not modify this section or any of its subsections, if anyone has a comment, please start a new section below. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination disputeOn 3 August 2020, there was a small dispute on whether User:Lazman321 should be allowed to nominate the article:
Issues raised:
GR1 and PR2GR1 was quick-failed by K. Peake, who also reviewed the article more thoroughly for PR2. PR2 includes a long list of problems needing addressing, each of which I will verify has been resolved or is not necessary.
GR2Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA2 was failed for unreliable sources, some of which I believe the reviewer was too quick to label, as a reliable source depends on the statement being sourced. Otherwise, editors made an attempt to fix the problem here prior re-nominating the page. |
Resolved 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
After each of these, please create a new line starting with one of **{{done}}, **{{not done}}, or **{{question}} and give an explanation if necessary and sign. I will have many many more comments and suggestions, but I will give you a chance to work on these in the meantime.
|
Resolved 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
|
---|
|
I am finished with critically reviewing the prose of the article. I see no major complaints outside of what I have listed above and what has already been resolved. I am now going over references in detail and will double check the previous PR and GR for extra points. Footlessmouse ( talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am done with my initial review, I have found many problems, and some were already addressed by the nominator in a timely manner. I have just found many more problems which I will give the nominator a chance to fix. In the meantime, I am officially asking for a second opinion for a few reasons. This is outside my area of editing expertise, so it would be great to have input from editors familiar with song articles, I am new to this process having just dove in this month, and the history of previous reviews and amount of problems raised. I am especially not familiar with reliability criteria for the various websites used to document the charts, though as they only document charts I presume they are good enough. Comments from independent editors are most welcome. If you have a comment, please leave under this section with a new fourth level heading (i.e. 4 equal signs before and after section title) Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I took a look at the certifications table and I found some problems, the table is automatic in various cases. However, the nominator didn't take a look at that and decided to copy and post several link, with many of them not working properly, wrong artists and so on. I have fixed it myself. Regarding you concerns on the charts, the Brazilian one with the PDF seems not to be working properly, so either remove it or find a replacement. The rest is fine since the providers are the offical, see here for a list of them and reliable sources, some accessdates are missing in said table. I would ask to remove the Mega Top 50 as it is not listed on the preivous list I mentioned and it seems its data only considers a couple of radio stations. Tables are missing header, and the release history is missing the label. iTunes is publisher, not work. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Kyle Peake: Do you have any comments before this GA is closed. I will go back over it one more time to make sure, but nom has fixed all issues I am aware of. Thanks! Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Lazman321: Thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. This article will need quite a bit of help before it can be tried for Featured Article status, as the article must obey ALL MOS guidelines and be "thorough". That being said, the GA guidelines are relatively lax and require only a few of the guidelines be followed. One note about the GA criteria that is important is that it does not have to be "thorough" but it must discuss to some extent just the major topics discussed in the sources. That is a relatively low bar to climb over. The article as it stands right now is only 13 kB of prose, which is very short for an article over such a popular topic. So there is definitely a lot of room for expansion and improvement. I would personally rewrite a few of the paragraphs, but taking that into account is against the GA review guidelines, which require only the article is clear and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. Due to this, I have determined that at this point in time, the GA requirements are met in this article. Great job on the article and congratulations on getting the GA pushed through. Footlessmouse ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk) 16:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall:
The wording on ALT1 is a bit fuzzy (contractions and "the thing") but since all hooks are the same, I am passing the nom and ask for ALT0 or ALT2 to be promoted. Regards,
IceWelder [
✉] 09:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The tempo of the song seems to be 126 BPM, not 127. Rohnx ( talk) 01:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)