Jump to content

Talk:Bring Me to Life

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

SingStar Pop Hits

[edit]

should we mention it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SingStar_Pop_Hits --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.98.157 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 3 February 2008

I really don't see a reason to do so...it doesn't seem like a particularly notable inclusion, and I imagine that Evanescence songs have featured in any number of video games. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Remix" version

[edit]

The new kid band Remix did a version of the song depicting scenes from the book "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.80.111 (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rock

[edit]

It would be wrong to label the genre of this song as 'alternative metal'. this song is linked with the rock music genre everywhere. It won best hard rock performance, it's in the vh1 list of 100 greatest hard rock songs and it's also in the list of 100 best rock songs of the decade. I believe the genre is rock and not alternative metal. It sounds nothing like alternative metal but has a few elements. plus adding alternative metal to this song makes it somewhat an alternative rock song. But this song is not 'alternative' it is 'rock' and nothing more. Do not mind if I change it. Sometimes wikipedia is one of the worst genre classifiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.55.141 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is called Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can find Reliable Sources which can back up your claim that "Alternative Metal" (established by consensus) is not a proper genre classification (which is, by the way, a sub-classification of the Rock genre), then by all means, change it. But until there are proper sources to describe the song otherwise, the article should remain labeled as the band's genre--Alternative Metal. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continuation for 'rock'

[edit]

i'm sorry I assaulted you without proper consensus. I'll go with your decision. But I still mentioned three sources which might classify this song as 'rock'. By the way, I already know that 'alternative metal' is a sub-category for rock. But it is mainly a fusion genre of 'alternative rock' and 'heavy metal'. Talking about the band's genre, not all their songs have to be necessarily 'alternative metal'. By the way amy lee herself has stated the band is rock with some metal and classical music elements despite the fact that they are labeled as 'alternative rock', 'hard rock', post-grunge', 'alternative metal', 'gothic rock/metal', nu metal among other genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.135.28 (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return

[edit]

Can someone please tell me why this song and "My Immortal" return back on charts several years after their releasings? Thank you. 123.26.113.225 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say...probably something simply triggered a resurgence of interest in Evanescence, and being the most well-known song, it got extra playtime. I've not seen anything published which made a mention of why. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a grammatical error. If you say "return" there's no need to add "back" after it. I had to correct a similar grammar error in the article, in the part that originally said "[...] must to have male vocals" because modal verbs such as "must" take a bare infinitive (a form of the infinitive without "to")--Marceki111 (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the error in the article, but this is a talk page (from January), not article space. There be can have errors for grammar here. It doesn't have to be perfect, this is only for discussion on improving the article. ;) ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bring Me to Life", also known as "Wake Me Up Inside", or "Save Me", is...

[edit]

It is a fact! Please google for example "Wake Me Up Inside" and you will see lots and lots of results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.80.216.17 (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely true. Please back up this statement with a strong, valid source. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

According to this, the CD single was released on April 7, and the Maxi single was released on April 14. My love is love (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misattributed Quote

[edit]

I may have found a problem with the "Covers and usage in media" section:

"Agnés later revealed why she sang "Bring Me to Life", "Full disclosure: I hate Evanescence. Fine, so I'm only familiar with their smash hit "Bring Me to Life," probably because I had to listen to it every friggin' day when I sold sneakers at the Paramus Modell's in high school. But I still have strong feelings about the song, as I find it stupid and overly dramatic."[71]"

The article cited is written by Karl de Vries, a writer for The Star-Ledger. The quote used in this Wikipedia article and attributed to Ms. Agnes are the words of Mr. de Vries himself, and not those of Ms. Agnes. There's nothing in the article that suggests that the words were actually said by Ms. Agnes and the paragraph that follows the quote suggests that while he hates Evanescence, he liked Ms. Agnes's performance of the song. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. The editor who added this "quote" must have assumed that the bold text and colon meant that the text that followed was a quote by that person, not simply a header to describe the one individual's performance by the article's writer. I have removed both the false quote and the reference call. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I would have removed it myself, but I couldn't figure out how to properly remove the reference without screwing everything else up. I'm still sort of new to this! --Mr. Corgi (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rap rock?

[edit]

It's not really rap rock, it had a couple of rap elements but there is not really rapping in it, both vocalists were singing it's more like alternative rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.182.228 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that's your opinion, but the "rap rock" is sourced, so please do not change it again. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is one source really enough to put it on there, when it's clear that MTV really means "nu-metal", which is what the song is and has more sources? --68.185.2.34 (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decade end charts

[edit]

I visit the page frequently and i just noticed that the song's ranking on the decade end billboard rock songs changed, i dont remember exaclty what the ranking was but im sure it wasnt as high as #7, i think it was in the 20s or somthing. I tried to verify the source, but the link is dead, i tried to look on billboard but i couldnt find it 24.227.9.114 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Pirner: Sleepwalker

[edit]

This painting could be a possible inspiration for the music video, IMHO.

http://40.media.tumblr.com/c70a3dcf310e1bea518feaa2375cb2e5/tumblr_o2e13tjPSo1r2s3h9o1_500.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.59.79 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bring Me to Life. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bring Me to Life. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bring Me to Life. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Any particular reason why the "Cultural impact" section still exists in this article? I somehow fail to see its connection to this song now. And also why were all the cover versions of this song removed? I get it for the American Idol performances, but there were a lot of album covers too. My love is love 07:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music video comment relevance

[edit]

@DannyMusicEditor: What is the quote "You might not immediately recognize Amy Lee's name, but you would know her if she plummeted past you from the top floor of a tenement building" contributing to the article? It's not critically evaluating the video, nor is it describing or contextualizing it, like the other cited sources are in some capacity. It sounds purely trivial and un-encylcopedic. Lapadite (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief that this quote helps chronicle just how important this video was to the scene at the time. This was one of the key moments for Evanescence as a band, and is one of rock's biggest MTV successes. I would argue that it at least describes what is happening in the video - Amy did fall off that building. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that it drives home how important to the scene this video was. To me, that sounds relevant. dannymusiceditor oops 15:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre is invalid

[edit]

I don't hear any rap in this song, please remove from infobox. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is ANYONE going to look at this? I've been waiting patiently for a week. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done by FMSky Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Me to Life#Katherine Jenkins cover

[edit]

This section has been removed twice by user:Lapadite (with the summaries "non-notable and promotional section" and "Rv promotional and trivial section for a cover, out of hundreds of covers a hit song like this would have. Note that artist's cover on that artist's article.") and restored twice by user:Aspects (with the summaries "rv deletion of notable cover version" and "Per WP:BRD, now that a discussion has been started, the article should go back to the stable version with the cover having its own section as it has for over nine years"). Despite the summary, there was no discussion started by either editor, so I've started one.

I don't know that I would call this outright spam or trivia, but I don't know that I would call this a notable cover either. The Katherine Jenkins cover of the song does not have a Wikipedia article, which suggests that this cover is not notable by Wikipedia standards. If it isn't, why are we including this coverage in an article about Evanescence's single? The album the cover is on is notable and does have an article: Believe (Katherine Jenkins album). So what sourcing to we have in this section to support that the cover is itself notable per WP:NSONG? We need references that specifically pertain to the cover song.

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. and Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. and Notable covers are eligible for standalone articles, provided that the article on the cover can be reasonably-detailed based on facts independent of the original.

  1. The cover single apparently charted briefly in Germany and the UK. OK, that's useful. Per WP:NSONG it may be notable.
  2. There's no evidence the cover itself has "won one or more significant awards or honors".
  3. The cover itself has not been the subject of multiple covers by notable artists.
  4. The cover is merely mentioned in passing in several sources:
    1. https://web.archive.org/web/20120404183431/http://www.ok.co.uk//celebnews/view/15079/Katherine-I-left-studio-in-tears-/ mentions the cover while discussing the album.
    2. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/mar/05/katherine-jenkins-review? again mentions the single in the context of her new album
    3. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/mar/05/katherine-jenkins-review? simply mentions it in the context of her concert
    4. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/katherine-jenkins-busks-at-london-tube-station-6266639.html is just a bit trivia about her singing it while playing at busking.
  5. https://web.archive.org/web/20140617234625/https://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/bring-me-to-life-ep/id336264545 is useless for notability purposes as it is nothing but a iTunes track listing with user-generated reviews.

I'm not seeing enough here to demonstrate that this cover is notable. Meters (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP policy WP:ONUS, Aspect needs to start a discussion and seek consensus instead of reinserting content that's been removed per WP's policies and guidelines.
WP's notability guideline has nothing to do with the content in articles; its purpose is to determine whether a subject warrants its own article. Aspect's citing of the notability guideline is incorrect. They do not understand what the guideline is for, which states right at the top: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. My use of "non-notable" in an edit summary is not about the notability guideline, and I see why that can confuse those unfamiliar with this admittedly-vague shorthand. Some longtime editors are accustomed to using the term non-notable to refer to content that is trivial, that isn't significant for inclusion. I.e, it's irrelevant, pointless or insignificant trivia, which is what this is.
Out of dozens if not hundreds of covers this hit song might have, this cover has no significance to the song for it to be in this article, much less have its own section. WP isn't an indiscriminate collection of trivia. There is no WP-based reason some random cover should be given a section, and policies and guidelines, including WP:ONUS, WP:UNDUE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, do not support this. It, in fact, directly violates the policy of undue weight, which on its own determines the removal of the section.
It is also promotional, both in presentation and in intention, as Aspects is solely pushing this one cover onto the article, dedicating a whole section to it. Moreover, the presentation of this random cover in the article equates it to the significance of this band's re-recording of their own song, which does warrant its own section in this article. This is an example of what WP's due weight policy is for. These are the policy-based reasons this spamming of a trivial cover does not belong in the article, and never should've been as it was in the article. Lapadite (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Nub098765 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bring Me to Life/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lapadite (talk · contribs) 13:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 08:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Surprised this isn't a GA already. I'll review it. Nub098765 (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. This article is overly reliant on quotations in conveying its message. Like, it's bordering on copyvios. At present, I count a little under 200 quotation marks in the prose. While some quotes can illustrate a point, most can be paraphrased and just as effective. I recommend keeping essential quotes, particularly those that provide unique insight or perspective, but reducing or eliminating unnecessary quotations.

Also, some passages feel unconcise (is that a word?) and could be worded better. For example:

  • The song received a generally positive reception, with critics praising Lee's vocals and melody. It reached number one in Australia, Chile, Colombia, Italy, Scotland, and the United Kingdom as well as the top five in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. — Does the reader need the entire list to understand its commercial success? I feel like "...in many countries, including..." and then listing a few countries does the same, in fewer words.
  • Lee wrote "Bring Me to Life" at age 19, after a then-acquaintance (who later became her husband) asked her if she was happy; Lee was in an abusive relationship and in turmoil, and was shocked the person saw through her facade as she felt she "was completely outwardly acting normal". "I felt like he could just see straight into my soul. That inspired the whole song," she explained. — "then-" is unnecessary here; it is inferred through the parenthetical that they are no longer her acquaintance. Also, rather than using a semicolon here, separating this into two sentences would be beneficial. Maybe: Lee wrote "Bring Me to Life" when she was 19, after an interaction with an acquaintance who later became her husband. At the time, she was struggling in an abusive relationship and was surprised when he asked if she was happy, seeing through the facade she had been maintaining. "I felt like he could just see straight into my soul. That inspired the whole song," she explained.
  • After the moment that inspired her to write it, she "realized that for months I'd been numb, just going through the motions of life." — Overly complex and confusing phrasing. The sentence shifts between third-person narration and Lee's direct quote. Could be rephrased: After that moment, Lee realized she had been emotionally numb for months, simply "going through the motions of life."
  • In 2022, Lee noted that she was finding her voice lyrically while making the album, realizing "how the more honest I was, the more powerful I felt"; the song was "in a broader way about breaking free from something I knew I had the power to if I was brave enough", and represented "true desires, unspoken frustrations and fears, standing up to the bullshit around me [that] I was just on the cusp of being able to defeat". — Fragmented quotation usage. Perhaps: In 2022, Lee reflected on how she found her lyrical voice during the album's creation, realizing that the more honest she was, the more powerful she felt. She described the song as a representation of "true desires, unspoken frustrations and fears" and her realization that she could break free if she would be brave enough to face the challenges around her.
  • In order to market it, the label forced them to add the male rapping vocal, which Lee did not want, or the song and album would not be released. The male vocal was a compromise after the label originally demanded they include a rap on eight of the songs on the album. During an interview, Lee stated: "It was presented to me as, 'You're a girl singing in a rock band, there's nothing else like that out there, nobody's going to listen to you. You need a guy to come in and sing back-up for it to be successful.'" Lee wrote Paul McCoy's part. — Generally, "in order to" can simply be shortened to "to". Also, "or the song and album would not be released" could be streamlined. Referring to "the male vocal" again is redundant; it could simply be referred to by a pronoun. Also, the lead-in for the quote could flow better. Perchance: To market it, the label forced them to add a male rap vocal, which Lee opposed, threatening not to release the song or album otherwise. This was a compromise after the label initially demanded rap on eight tracks. In an interview, Lee recalled being told, "You're a girl singing in a rock band, there's nothing else like that out there, nobody's going to listen to you. You need a guy to come in and sing back-up for it to be successful." Lee wrote Paul McCoy's part.
  • On the chorus, Lee sings the lines "'Call my name and save me from the dark' over "surging guitars", and McCoy raps the lines "Wake me up/ I can't wake up/ Save me!". — It'd be "in the chorus", not "on the chorus". The phrase "the lines" is unnecessary. The quotes around "surging guitars" are unnecessary; that's a simple description. Also shouldn't each slash have a space before and after?
  • Rolling Stone's Kirk Miller said that the song is stylistically a "case of mistaken identity", dooming the band to Linkin Park comparisons "thanks to [its] digital beats, clean metal-guitar riffs, scattered piano lines and all-too-familiar mix of rapping and singing."[23] Blair R. Fischer of MTV called it a "ubiquitous rap-rock confection".[13] Richard Harrington from The Washington Post described its sound as "crunching metallic".[24] Ann Powers from the Los Angeles Times said that "with its lyrical drama and crunchy guitars, [the song] branded the band as overdone nu-metal."[25] "Bring Me to Life" has also been classified as hard rock,[26] alternative rock,[27] and Blender writer Nick Catucci described it as a "crossover goth-metal smash".[28] Nick Catucci of The Village Voice wrote that "piano tinkles, Lee's breathless keen, dramatic pauses, guitars like clouds of locusts, [and] McCoy's passing-12-kidney-stones guest vocals" characterize the song, which "sounds like church-burning, brain-eating European dark metal."[29] Vik Bansal of MusicOMH said the track contains "Lee's temptress vocals, pseudo-electronic beats à la Linkin Park, understated but menacing metallic riffs in the background, and a ripping, radio-friendly rock chorus."[30] MTV described it as "an unrelenting paean that begins as hauntingly delicate before piling on crumpled guitar lines and a rap" while "Lee's vocals soar above the whole sludgy mixture".[6] — This paragraph is a whirlwind of quotes. Many of these could be rephrased and stated as fact rather than writing them verbatim and attributing them to a specific person. Also, why is Nick Catucci introduced twice? Are they the same person? I understand Nick's writing for two different outlets, but if they really are the same person, you don't need to introduce them in full twice.

And that's just the "Composition and recording" section (well, beside the first comment). These prose issues persist throughout the article. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use clear, precise and accurate terms. On a good note, though, I like how you wrote the "Chart performance" section. That is an exemplary section for this article, and with some minor adjustments, it could really be perfect.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Pretty well-formatted. However, why are "2017 Synthesis arrangement" and "Cover versions" different 2L sections? They could both just be in a section titled "Other versions" and not clutter the TOC. Alternatively, since there is a total of one non-primary source for the cover version, it could be removed altogether, as it doesn't seem integral to the subject, or perhaps not even notable.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is a list of references.
2b. 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). Everything is cited to a source. And most of these sources are reliable. However, I would like to comment on the reliability of three sources in particular:
  • Songfacts is user-generated, so unreliable per WP:USERG.
  • Alternative Press is considered unreliable.
  • What makes Scuzz TV's interview a reliable source? Would this count as a primary source?
2c. it contains no original research. Well, since there are so many quotes, I don't think there's much room for original research to breed.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig says "violation possible", with 71.5% similarity. Too concerningly high.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, it covers the main topics.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Seems to stay pretty focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Seems neutral setting aside the quotes.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Very stable. No ongoing edit wars, no move discussions, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. The one image is fair use, and is tagged as such.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Identifies the subject of the article, and is in the lead. No caption available.
7. Overall assessment. See below.

Apologies if this seems hasty, but I'm going to have to quickfail this nomination. There are simply too many quotes to be reasonably reworked over the course of this GAN review. Paraphrasing these quotes would give this article much more to stand on. However, it isn't all bad; there are many aspects where this article excels. However, due to criteria 1a and 2d, I'm going to have to quickfail this.

You've obviously put a lot into this article (I mean, writing exactly one third of it isn't an easy feat), and I applaud you for your edits. But its prose feels too clunky in some areas and the article simply relies too heavily on quotations. If you'd like, you can incorporate my suggestions and shave down the quotations and renominate this article at a later time. Best of luck with this article in the future! Thanks, Nub098765 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Response

[edit]

Hi @Nub098765:. Unfortunately, you didn't give me a chance to fix or respond to your concerns as you failed the GAN at the same time you made your review. A review can be placed on hold to allow the nominator time to respond; seven days is the accepted timeframe for a review completion. As you mentioned, I'm a top editor of the article, but obviously not the only contributor and I disagreed with several edits that added to what you had an issue with in the review. Your concerns can be fixed with copy editing, which I could've finished within a couple days; the copyright violations, for instance, is simply from the use of quotations. Of course, it's your prerogative as the reviewer to pass/hold/fail, but I wanted to let you know that I believe the immediate fail here is unwarranted as copy editing would've fixed the issue. Hopefully when the article is re-nominated it doesn't spend another 3 months in the queue. Lapadite (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, @Lapadite. I appreciate your feedback and I apologize if my review felt hasty or abrupt. As a newer reviewer, I'm still learning the ropes, and I realize now that I should have allowed time for you to respond and make changes, which is the standard practice. I appreciate your patience with that.
That said, while I understand that some of the concerns might have been fixable with copy editing, I still feel that the article had significant issues—especially regarding the overuse of quotes—which led me to fail it under QF criterion 1. In my view, it seemed like the article was still a long way from meeting the Good Article criteria. I do acknowledge that others may have handled the review differently, and I definitely could have communicated better to give you the chance to address those issues first.
Again, I'm sorry if my actions caused frustration, and I hope this doesn't discourage you from renominating the article once it's been revised. I'd be happy to review it again (this time with a full review) if you'd like or let another reviewer take it, as you prefer.
Thanks again for your understanding. Best of luck with whichever direction you decide to take this article. Nub098765 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nub098765: No worries, I wanted to express my view on the decision. I appreciate your understanding as well. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bring_Me_to_Life&oldid=1252201977"