Jump to content

Talk:Between You & Me (Betty Who song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Shaidar cuebiyar (talk · contribs) 07:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Starting the review I will add my comments per criterion as I go along but reserve the right to return to earlier criteria until the review is finished. This may take a few days (hopefully not more than a week).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Fix this.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link has been fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1

[edit]

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

    2. Infobox

    • Since the artist is Australian-born, but American based, the article should have the following templates added above the infobox:

    {{Use American English}} {{Use dmy dates}}

    • At length = use {{Duration|m=3|s=15}}
    • At label = remove Recordings

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • In following sections keep all formatting and wikilinks unless otherwise indicated.

    Lead

    1. Who co-wrote > Jessica Newham (p.k.a. Betty Who) co-wrote
    2. Peter Thomas, JHart and Pretty Sister > Peter Walsh (Peter Thomas), James Abrahart (JHart) and Zak Stucchi (Zak Waters, Pretty Sister)
    3. De-link common terms, e.g., lead single, acoustic, pop, guitar
    4. Re-word Who wrote the song based We've just been told it was co-written with three others.
    5. Remove one of 'critical' or 'from music critics' as being redundant.
    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Background and writing

    1. Reduce overuse of terms: Who, song, (these may also be overused in other sections)
    2. Show songwriters' actual names. Give their performance names or aliases in brackets, link to subject's article per most commonly used name. By the way, I doubt this blog source is reliable for song writing information.
    3. would not complete > did not complete Past tense.
    4. Remove 2nd feelings from sentence starting with Who drew inspiration...
    5. In the sentence starting with A fan of the television... should who be capitalised?
    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Release

    1. Reduce overuse of terms: Who, song, "Between You & Me", (these may also be overused in other sections)
    2. Check capitalisations of Who.
    3. Why wikilink sophomore album to sophomore slump? By the way, "sophomore", is a particularly North American term, you should consider "second" as being more universal for general wikipedia readers.
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Full term for extended play at first appearance: use EP thereafter.
    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Is Who contradicting herself? Consider, "... Who drew similarities between the song and 'Just Thought You Should Know', another track ...", compared with "... There isn't anything else on the record that is quite like [it]..." Some clarification is required.
    I don't see it as contradictory. Who says that Just Thought You Should Know is similar thematically, but when she was saying "There isn't anything else on the record that is quite like [it]" she was referring to the acoustic arrangement/production.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Music and lyrics

    1. De-link common terms. Reduce overuse of terms. Check apostrophes, e.g. Who’s vocals > Who's vocals. Check quote marks, e.g. if you do too”. > if you do too." Check these in other sections.
    2. Delete in duration as redundant.
    3. Delete sentence starting with Who's online store as biased and unreliable.
    Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Fix pipe at [[Chorus (music)|chorus]] > [[Chorus (song)|chorus]] to avoid dab page.
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Italicise websites and works, e.g. ''[[Idolator (website)|Idolator]]''; e.g. Entertainment Voice Check this in other sections.
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reception

    1. De-link common terms. Reduce overuse of terms. Italicise websites and works.
    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Consider ''[[Notion (magazine)|Notion]]'' deemed it Notion is a magazine, it can't deem anything. Try ''[[Notion (magazine)|Notion]]''{{'}}s staff writer(s) deemed it
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Writing for Idolator, Mike Nied > Nied, writing for Idolator,
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    All points addressed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Music video and live performances

    1. Reduce overuse of each other
    2. proceeding > proceed Align tense.
    3. Delete , Massachusetts Redundant.

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Changes have improved the article. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 2

    [edit]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

    3. References I will be checking all the references and each comment below is under their number as they existed at this time. The order may change from this numbering as refs get moved, added or deleted. Preliminary comment: all refs including newspapers should have a publisher or website/work. Newspapers and other works are generally italicised but publishers are not. Check titles for title case and formatting. Check for author(s) names. Use mdy dates for date, archive date and retrieved date.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)03:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Fix last = Aliaga and first = Jon. Fix title, e.g. with.
      1. How is this blog a reliable source for song writers? You need a better authority, e.g. ASCAP or APRA, especially for actual name cf. performance name(s).
        1. I added an additional source for the songwriters from Spotify.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      2. Content not verified.
    2. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    3. Fix title. Betty. Wikilink work. Content at b not verified: "sophomore album" mentioned but not "sophomore slump".shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Okay
    5. Fix title. on the and Flirty 'Between You & Me'. Wikilink work.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Fix title. by and Betty. Fix & wikilink work. [[Clash (magazine)|Clash]] Add editor = Simon Harper It seems the content was written by Who, "Betty Who kindly penned a full Track by Track guide for Clash readers, and she told us: Making Betty has been one of the greatest experiences of my life." In which case add values for last = and first = and authorlink =. Content verified (and correctly attributed to Who in main text).
    7. Fix website. Euphoria. Content verified.
    8. Fix title. Wikilink work. Quotes starting with Getting a little closer to comes from the other Spanos' article (currently at ref [17]) not from the one at [8]. Content at c or at g is not verified. Don't see "plucky" here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    10. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Fix title. Content verified.
    12. Fix title. Content at b or at c is not verified.
    13. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    14. Fix title. Content verified.
    15. Does not verify "sophomore slump" at a
    16. Fix title. Content verified.
    17. Add work. Content verified. It should be used instead of some tabs at ref [8].shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Fix title. Content verified.
    19. Fix title. Content verified.
    20. Content verified. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Content verified.
    22. Fix title. Content verified.
    23. Not an independent reliable source. Use a better source for "acoustic-powered".
      1. I just removed the "acoustic-powered" quote altogether. The song has been identified as acoustic many times throughout the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    24. Wikilink work. Don't see "plucky" here: content not fully verified.
    25. Content verified.
    26. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    27. Fix title. Wikilink work. Add last = staff writer. Content verified.
    28. Add both authors, wikilink one of them to Loote. Give wikilink for work. Content verified. Note has phrase "acoustic-powered" (see ref [23])
    29. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    30. Fix title. Content verified. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    31. Fix title. Fix apostrophe in the inner quote. Content verified.
    32. Fix title. Add last = staff writer, editor = Silke K Bader. Wikilink website = [[Lesbians on the Loose|LOTL]] . Content verified.
    33. Wikilink work. In main text italicise it. At second mention, in main text, just use Williams (not whole name again). Content verified.
    34. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    35. Okay.
    36. Does not mention Spotify. The 500,000 may be an accumulative total of various streaming services. Furthermore, this source incorrectly calls the album, I Remember; while its next single, "Nobody Loves Me Like You Do", is about to be released. Content not verified.
    37. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    38. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    39. Fix title. Add editor = Toshio Maeoka.
    40. Fix title. Wikilink work. Content verified.
    41. Fix title. Content verified.
    42. Fix title. Content verified.
    43. Wikilink work. Requires registration: users should be warned. Content could not be checked. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All references fixed/addressed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Further changes have improved the article. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 3

    [edit]
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    1. Criterion 3a is covered.
    2. I have problems with unnecessary detail given in virtually every section. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed the fat off of various areas throughout the article.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Your trimming has improved the article. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 4

    [edit]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    1. Too many pro artist, pro album or pro song statements. Are there any more negative reviews?
    The song was critically acclaimed, as cited; I couldn't find negative or neutral reviews from reliable sources.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Too much content uses direct quotes from Who, herself. e.g. do the other song writers have anything to say? What about the musicians or producer?
    The producers/co-writers haven't provided commentary on the song. All interviews have been with the artist herself.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Even though many sources are cited some say almost exactly the same as each other: this suggests those references are citing Press Release(s) (or some other common source) and hence are not independent.
    2. Did the single chart anywhere? If not, its lack of commercial success should be described (probably in Reception section).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The song didn't chart, but I can't find any sources specifically referencing the song being a commercial "failure".--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Acceptable. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 5

    [edit]
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    • Generally stable with no recent edit wars. Some further changes based on this reviewer's suggestions are expected.
    Done shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Criterion 6

    [edit]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
    1. Check fair use rationale (here): is Who the graphic artist/photographer?
    Credited to the artist because a reliable source can't be found for the photographer.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More work needed. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Acceptable. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision pending

    [edit]

    Review is on hold pending editors improving article according to instructions above. I will wait seven days to determine if sufficient work has been made.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've addressed and/or resolved all concerns; awaiting final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC) Shaidar cuebiyar[reply]

    Article still has unresolved problems:

    1. Criterion 1:
      1. Note: p.k.a. should be in an abbr template so that the hover function spells it out for users who don't know what the initials stand for. Check wikicode above to see how its done.
    Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Overuse of terms: Who (12×), song (9×) in Background and writing, I didn't check other sections but they still have too many overused terms.
    This entire section is literally about the process of Who writing the song; multiple mentions of both her name and the word "song" are to be expected throughout the article, no? It would be like trying to write an article about a formula Albert Einstein developed, but not being able to use the terms "Einstein" or "formula". I'll make another pass, but I'm not sure how this can be avoided.--Changedforbetter (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        1. All or nothing? I asked for the terms to be reduced: not totally eliminated. I find it wearying to have so many mentions of these terms: find further alternatives and make the article easier to read. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      2. In Release
        1. You have "Who and the producers had". Shouldn't this be singular?
    "producers" actually refers to the album's multiple music and executive producers, not just the song's producer. I've added clarificaton.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Okay. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        2. Fix the person that I am". and others of similar ilk.
        3. Fix anybody improve it.” and others of similar ilk.
    Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Leave [[extended play]] in wikilinks. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        2. More italicising of websites/works needed. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected all that I can find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Criterion 2:
      1. Current refs (using this version) not formatted properly &/or wikilinks not provided: [1], [2], [5], [7], [10]... (too many more). Check them all again.
    Can you please clarify, in general, what I am to be looking for when you say "formatted improperly"? What is wrong with 2 and 7, for example.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Shaidar cuebiyar[reply]
        1. Consider WP:MoS and information at title case. Specifically, place single quote marks for song titles inside quotations/titles of articles: e.g. at [2] use title = 'Between You & Me' Title case: e.g. at [7]: title = Track by Track: Betty Who on ''Betty'' shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All references fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. I can't access Spotify desktop app and so can't check this information. In any case, Peter Thomas is Peter Walsh, Zak Waters/Pretty Sister is Zakariah Stucchi. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        1. You haven't fix Jonali at ref [1]. You don't give a reliable ref for the actual names of the song's writers. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the blog link. You claim that Peter Thomas and Zak Waters' real names are Peter Walsh and Zakariah Stucchi, respectively, but this isn't cited in Walsh's Wikipedia article, nor in the Spotify credits.--Changedforbetter (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            1. Remember Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Those articles are not assessed as GA or better. As I informed you before, for song writers you need a better source than Spotify (which I can't check). I suggest you use both ASCAP and APRA. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source; I was just suggesting that wouldn't someone have already mentioned Waters' alleged "full name" in his Wikipedia biography if it were verifiable? I would just cite the album's liner notes, but you'd probably say that's not a good source either because you can't access it. Information for the song is not available on ASCAP or APRA – I've already checked – probably because it's an independent release. However, I've added three additional sources: Shazam, Deezer (which you require a subscription to access) and Ultratop; each source cites their names as Peter Thomas and Zak Waters. Awaiting final verdict, as per my message at the bottom of this page.--Changedforbetter (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC) shaidar cuebiyar[reply]
                1. The use of four references for the song's writers is not required. None is as authoratative as ASCAP or APRA but it seems your checking there did not get the same outcome. Consider: <ref name="ASCAP Between">{{cite web | url = https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/search/workID/895968697 | title = ACE Repertory – Work ID 895968697 | publisher = [[American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers]] (ASCAP) | accessdate = 25 July 2019 }}</ref> and <ref name="APRA Between">{{cite web | publisher = [[Australasian Performing Right Association]] (APRA) | [[Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society]] (AMCOS) | title = 'Between You and Me' at APRA search engine | url = http://apraamcos.com.au/search?searchtype=works&keywords=between+you+and+me | accessdate = 25 July 2019 }} Note: For additional work user may have to select 'Search again' and then 'Enter a title:' &/or 'Performer:'</ref> The former gives Zakariah Dane Stucchi and Peter Thomas, the latter gives Z Stucchi and P Walsh respectively. If you explore ASCAP's ACE Repertory you'll find Peter Thomas Walsh (search under writer) is the full name of Peter Thomas. He is the sole writer of Anton Hagman's "Running in the Dark". shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your patience and help finding this information; it appears as though I was overlooking the "Include alternate titles" option on ASCAP. I've added both references in addition to Shazam and, since Thomas seems to alternate between Thomas and Thomas Walsh, I'm referring to him as "Thomas Walsh" throughout the article. Awaiting verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Shaidar cuebiyar[reply]
      1. Ref [44] still has no warning about registration needed. I can't access this source to verify the content. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the website only requires you to register if you are trying to access from certain regions, since I have always been able to access the link without registering nor am I prompted to register, but I've added the warning.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        1. A warning is still needed to make this wp accessible to a greater range of users.
    2. Criterion 4:
      1. Re: charting... Although not specifically referring to this song, PopMatters' Evan Sawdey has "She absolutely strikes you as the kind of artist who would've had a Top 40 single or two by this point." (see here). Article should describe that it has not charted (whether that is a commercial failure is left to the readers to decide). How do you explain all the critical acclaim, high Spotify streaming (400,000 times in two weeks) and yet no charting anywhere?
    Betty Who has experienced chart success, just not with this single. A song can be a critical success with decent online streams without impacting the charts, especially in the digital age. Unless I have a source clearly stating or alluding to the fact that the song has not charted, I don't think I can really reference its lack of chart success at all. But I have referenced the song being a streaming success.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More to follow. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    All points addressed. References have been corrected and content has been shortened wherever possible, including limiting direct quotes and decreasing the repetition of certain words. In cases where the title of the source placed the album's title (Betty) in quotations, I've corrected it by italicizing. My source for the songwriters' credits does not cite Peter Thomas and Zak Waters as the names you've given. Awaiting verdict. --Changedforbetter (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Shaidar cuebiyar[reply]

    Done. Congratulations the article has now passed. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Between_You_%26_Me_(Betty_Who_song)/GA1&oldid=908023639"