Talk:Candida (song)

Candida (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.
Review: October 29, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Candida (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moise, I'll be glad to take this one. Thanks in advance for your work on it. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass, this looks very good--good prose, well-sourced, appears to cover major aspects. I'll go to the checklist and do some source checks, but my guess is that this is ready to promote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2013 (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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

"Sing-along", not "sing-a-long"

The article quotes Hoffman's Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound as saying that Candida has "a lilting sing-a-long groove". This should be "sing-along groove". (We're saying that the groove makes the listener want to sing along.) I'm going to fix it. I don't have access to the book, so I can't tell whether the mistake is there. It seems more likely it was introduced in transcription; published books get copy-edited. If it's in the book we should use "(sic)" to note that the mistake isn't Wikipedia's, or (better yet) use square brackets to indicate that the corrected form is a paraphrase. TypoBoy (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TyoBoy. The mistake is in the source. I have added square brackets as you suggested. Moisejp (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source is correct. It says "sing-along". The mistake was introduced when the quote was transcribed into Wikipedia.

It's an understandable mistake, though. The word "along" is broken between two lines of the Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound, and, of course, a hyphen is introduced to show the word break. But that hyphen isn't part of the quote. Earlier in the same paragraph, Hoffman says that Tony Orlando had worked as "a song promoter". There is a line break after the first syllable in the word "promoter". But you wouldn't quote Hoffman as calling Orlando "a song pro-moter".

I scanned the page and posted a partial image of the paragraph here on the talk page. That turns out not to be OK on Wikipedia, so the scan is going to be deleted. But the lesson here is that Hoffman did not misspell "sing-along". TypoBoy (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]