This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status - what needs to be done?
Here by request. :-) Few things I notice that need to be addressed: There are a few quotes missing references, mostly in the "References" section. There's also a "clarification needed" tag on one of the "Appearances in other media" that has to be taken care of before it goes to GAC. The range of information you cover looks good; the depth could probably be extended a bit more, but I don't know that it'll be necessary for GA status. Looks pretty good in general, though. Good luck.
Hersfold(
t/
a/
c)02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The Covers section needs to have reliable sources. I had copy-edited the section, but some of the points you included had no sources, and one source was wrong information. So you need to provide reliable sources for all the "citation needed" tags which I put there.
Calvin •
NaNaNaC'mon!13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Some of them rare still wrong. Do you want me to correct them? Also, did you know she performed the song on MTV Unplugged in Germany? She did an acoustic version.
Calvin •
NaNaNaC'mon!11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The article leaves me confused and lacks context. The article lead is decent, but the article body starts out immediately by talking about the internet leak. What about the origins, development, inspiration and recording of the song (the "behind-the-scenes" content)? I think the best organization would be development, etc, then release information (including the leak), then reception, then all the charts and then the cover version information.
A lot of the article is unsourced, tagged or no, and there are issues with stating opinions as fact (for example, a reviewer's comments that the song is an "epic weepy" anthem is pretty much regarded as the "real" interpretation given that it's not attributed to any person.) Likewise, a lot of the material is
original research, to wit the entire synopsis of the music video is merely sourced to a Youtube video. "The song is featured in the film Made of Honor, starring Patrick Dempsey and Michelle Monaghan. It appears towards the end of the film." is not fully supported by the ref given. These are serious issues and alongside the structure problems are the biggest things that need to be addressed.
In similar veins: ""10 Minutes of Noise and Confusion – Part Two" is the second part of a feature covering 48 hours on the road with Oasis during the Tour of Brotherly Love, which was a tour of the United States with the Black Crowes in May and June 2001." is unsourced, and also has no context—why is this mentioned in the track listing?
Personnel: unsourced (you could use the liner notes for this.)
In short, I think this article needs more content and a lot more rigorous sourcing to meet GA requirements. I don't watchlist these reviews, so if you have any queries take it to my talk page. Cheers,
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk)20:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to get it to GA status - what needs to be done?
Here by request. :-) Few things I notice that need to be addressed: There are a few quotes missing references, mostly in the "References" section. There's also a "clarification needed" tag on one of the "Appearances in other media" that has to be taken care of before it goes to GAC. The range of information you cover looks good; the depth could probably be extended a bit more, but I don't know that it'll be necessary for GA status. Looks pretty good in general, though. Good luck.
Hersfold(
t/
a/
c)02:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The Covers section needs to have reliable sources. I had copy-edited the section, but some of the points you included had no sources, and one source was wrong information. So you need to provide reliable sources for all the "citation needed" tags which I put there.
Calvin •
NaNaNaC'mon!13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Some of them rare still wrong. Do you want me to correct them? Also, did you know she performed the song on MTV Unplugged in Germany? She did an acoustic version.
Calvin •
NaNaNaC'mon!11:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The article leaves me confused and lacks context. The article lead is decent, but the article body starts out immediately by talking about the internet leak. What about the origins, development, inspiration and recording of the song (the "behind-the-scenes" content)? I think the best organization would be development, etc, then release information (including the leak), then reception, then all the charts and then the cover version information.
A lot of the article is unsourced, tagged or no, and there are issues with stating opinions as fact (for example, a reviewer's comments that the song is an "epic weepy" anthem is pretty much regarded as the "real" interpretation given that it's not attributed to any person.) Likewise, a lot of the material is
original research, to wit the entire synopsis of the music video is merely sourced to a Youtube video. "The song is featured in the film Made of Honor, starring Patrick Dempsey and Michelle Monaghan. It appears towards the end of the film." is not fully supported by the ref given. These are serious issues and alongside the structure problems are the biggest things that need to be addressed.
In similar veins: ""10 Minutes of Noise and Confusion – Part Two" is the second part of a feature covering 48 hours on the road with Oasis during the Tour of Brotherly Love, which was a tour of the United States with the Black Crowes in May and June 2001." is unsourced, and also has no context—why is this mentioned in the track listing?
Personnel: unsourced (you could use the liner notes for this.)
In short, I think this article needs more content and a lot more rigorous sourcing to meet GA requirements. I don't watchlist these reviews, so if you have any queries take it to my talk page. Cheers,
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(
talk)20:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply