Talk:Earth Song/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the lead, second paragraph, last sentence, it says, "However, the lack of a release in the U.S. hampered the full worldwide sales potential of the song." I'm not quite sure what you mean here; lack of release how? Did the single suffer from low amount of copies available, or did it lack promotion? The sections 'Environmental recognition' and 'Commercial reception' could be merged in 'Critical reception' as a subsection.
It was not a single in the US, it had no physical release but some radio stations played it anyway. This isn't uncommon with Jackson, because his fan base is actually outside of America, he has songs that appeal to different regions of the world. I can only guess that sony thought an environmentalist song wouldn't go down well in Texas? The decision not to release it seems like a complete miscalculation in hindsight. Sales wise, "Earth Song" is in amongst his top 3-5 sellers. I think Sony deserve a trout slap for this error. Anyway I suppose "lack of a commercial release" would clear things up? — Realist² 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured the reception aspects. — Realist² 14:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and copy-edited the lead. DiverseMentality 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I performed a minor copyedit of the article, but it needs more before the prose can be called "reasonably well written". There are numerous odd sentence constructions like "The video was shot on four continents; the Amazon Rainforest—a large part of this was destroyed a week after the video shot." The original reviewer needs to scrutinize this a lot more. —Zeagler (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did the review in the middle of the night (not my one of my best ideas), so I definitely should have waited until the morning. I'll give the article another review. DiverseMentality 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've done some more pro's cleaning. — Realist² 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the 'Production and music' section should be changed back to past tense. The song is done being written and produced.

The 'Background' section really ought to be cut down to one paragraph. There is far more detail there than necessary to establish that Jackson is a charitable and socially conscious guy. That 39 musicians performed on "We Are the World" is not relevant to "Earth Song", for example.

The Sacramento Bee quote is not useful without explaining what the reviewer found "cool" about the song. —Zeagler (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. — Realist² 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Under 'Background', does source number one back up the entire paragraph, where it's the single source? Under the same section, it says Jackson donated $500,000 to UNCF, but the source (the only one I can access, number two) says $455,000; does source number three, Taraborrelli, cite the $500,000? Under the same section, once again, does source number four back up the uncited paragraphs? Under the same section, source number five RyanWhite.com, is an expired site. Source number six uses the {{cite web}} template, but doesn't use a URL. Source number eight only shows a preview, and to see the full articles, requires one to sign in and purchase the article. Under 'Production and music', sources twelve and thirteen also requires one to sign in; the other two sources don't back up the meaning of the song. Under 'Critical reception', same issue with sources fifteen, sixteen and seventeen.

Altered to $455,000. — Realist² 14:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a lot of sources in the background section. Definitely all sourced by references provided. — Realist² 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having sources that require you to sign in to view the whole article. We are allowed to cite books and newspapers all the time, irrelevant of whether or not they also have an online archive. The direct link to the archive is a little something extra for those who do have access to it. The fact that some people don't have an account is irrelevant, just like they might not have a certain book or newspaper. We don't have to cite freely viewable web links only. I can remove the direct link to the archive if you like, and just cite it as a news source. However I see no harm in providing people with the option of viewing it online if they so wish to cough up the cash. — Realist² 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that sites that require registration, paid or not, should not be used. It said that somewhere… I'll try to look for it. DiverseMentality 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, although I've been allowed to do it on featured articles in the past. I can delink them then if you like and just give the newspaper publications details. I've always been in favor of giving readers who do happen to have an account the opportunity to read it. Otherwise people have to dig out their original copy of the newspaper from like 13 years ago. — Realist² 18:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in the citations are inconsistent, with some in the U.S. format, some in the UK, and some in ISO. They should all be in the U.S. format for this article. —Zeagler (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that in respect to the "retrieve date" aspect, I notice those are inconsistent. However, by the look of it, that inconsistency is being caused by the different templates (web and news). — Realist² 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that was being caused by the different references templates being used. There is conistancy now, I altered some of the templates and removed retrieve tags where they simply weren't needed. Anyway, retrieve tags are not a requirement for GA thank God. — Realist² 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my recent change. Being a good editor, I know you'll want to fix the rest. :) —Zeagler (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Realist² 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
POV phrases: "Significant commercial success", "most successful single", "particularly well" — just stick to the numbers. —Zeagler (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Altered any glaring issues. — Realist² 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not fixed; people have different definitions of "success" and "well". In order to fix the problem, you need to replace those phrases with their basis (e.g. "'Earth Song' reached number one on the UK Singles chart and remained in that position for 99 weeks" or whatever). —Zeagler (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fixed now. Any "definitions" have been clearly defined. — Realist² 02:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image:Earth Song.jpg does not comply with fair-use; the cover should be no bigger than 300px.
Image fixed I think. — Realist² 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, now it complies with fair-use. DiverseMentality 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The music sample needs a caption that backs up the fair use rationale (i.e. what specifically does it illustrate?). See the discussions from any featured article nomination, or how I did it in Lions (album). —Zeagler (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, at least to a sufficient degree for GA. — Realist² 23:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. DiverseMentality 07:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like everything's been taken care of, but because Zeagler was also a part of the reviewing process, I'll wait his opinion. DiverseMentality 23:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied. —Zeagler (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns have been addressed, I'm passing the article. Good work! DiverseMentality 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Another one in the bag. — Realist² 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]