Jump to content

Talk:LOL Smiley Face

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLOL Smiley Face 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.
Good topic starLOL Smiley Face is part of the Ready (Trey Songz album) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Move?

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Smiley Face → LOL :-) —

Comment The official YouTube Music Video titles the video as LOL Smiley Face [1] 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』¤ 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. — WP:TITLE#Music states "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art, though a redirect may be appropriate (for example, KoЯn redirects to Korn)."
— V = I * R (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:MOS-TM. Dekimasuよ! 08:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Again. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Smiley Face → LOL :-) — New title is on blacklist. The song is listed on iTunes, Amazon, and Rhapsody under this correct title. --Chasewc91 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:LOL Smiley Face/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A few issues detailed below
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A couple of queries below
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Covers main aspects, doesn't get off track.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral and balanced.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems fine. Recent edits appear to be improving article to this standard.
  6. 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):
    Appropriate image and audio use, each has the appropriate licensing and fair use rationale.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Prose/MoS issues
  • The lead is a little bit too short. At the moment it doesn't quite summarise the article, per WP:LEAD. Although it pretty much touches on all aspects, it would be nice to see a little more of the critical reception in the lead, as that's quite a developed section.
The reason I didn't expand on the critical reception in the lead was because they only thing critics universally agreed on was that the song was catchy.
  • I gather that the song is known either as "LOL Smiley Face" or "LOL:-)". Sometimes during the article you refer to it just as "LOL". Unless this is another official variation, this should consistently be "LOL:-)". If it is a variation, that should be stated in the opening sentence.
 Done
  • In the composition section, it might be worth saying that "Neighbors Know My Name" is from the same album, or roughly contemporary, to clarify the relevance of it being mentioned.
  • A couple of comments are a bit weasely; ie. not attributed. For example, ""LOL :-)"'s beat has been described as ..." and ""LOL"'s chorus has been said to be in a similar pattern..." You have provided references, which is the main thing, but try to say who said what, so that the reader understands the relevance/importance without having to check out the citation immediately.
 Done
  • Is DJBooth a person as well as a website? I was a bit confused... if it's only a website, it sounds a bit strange so would be better as A reviewer for DJBooth. Don't worry if it's a person though, you don't need to put "DJBooth of DJBooth.com..."!
 Done
  • "On the week labeled September 19, 2009" - I haven't heard that phrase before, is that a common way of talking about the charts? The only other articles on Wikipedia using that language seem to be ones contributed to by you. Please completely ignore me if I'm just being ignorant about the music biz, but I would have expected something like "the week beginning" or "the week ending", or even "the week of".
I've seen the phrase used but I'll change it to the week ending  Done
  • The last three prose sections are very short. Could these be merged at all?
I'll merge the last two but Chart performance and the video and performances are unrelated.  Done
  • I gather from the infobox that the single was download only. That should be mentioned in the prose. You also don't seem to have mentioned the release date or label in the text. These details could go together.
Well, typical music articles don't re-list the label or release date or format in the prose, and the format is included in the release history.
Really? I would have thought that would be basic information (release date & label; not necessarily format) that should be included. Is this written down anywhere? I've looked at the MoS and WP:SONG, but admittedly the MoS is a bit of a rabbit warren. Now, I would be (grudgingly!) happy with it just mentioned in the lead, I think I overlooked that you have mentioned the date in the lead, so I apologise for that, but would you object to adding the label there too?--BelovedFreak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, well I've never seen the label in a high-quality single article, that's usually left for albums or extended plays. Candyo32 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credits" and "personnel" kind of mean the same thing, so I'd just pick one for the section header.
Well most FA music articles I based this one on use the heading "Credits and personnel", and it hasn't seemed to be a problem in my other eighteen good articles I used the section heading for.
Ok, I don't mean this to be a bone of contention, and it won't make the article fail GA. I know I can be a bit picky at GAN, maybe more than you're used to, but I like to see it as an opportunity to improve the article generally, as well as just granting it the green cross. After all, that's what we're here for as I'm sure you agree with all the fantastic work you've already done on music articles. I can't comment on the other reviews, but "credits and personnel" is tautology. They mean the same thing. Who is being credited, if not the personnel? It would be almost like having a section in a film article called "Plot and synopsis". I can understand you maybe thinking "if it aint broke, don't fix it", but is there a good reason for keeping it like that apart from the fact that the other articles have been like that?--BelovedFreak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factual accuracy/references/citations
  • The chart position in the lead and in the "chart performance" section don't match
 Done
  • The two Billboard refs currently at ref nos.
??
  • As far as reliability goes, could you please comment on why the following are reliable:
    • Acharts
Forgive me for interrupting but i will answer this, WP:CHARTSCHART states "Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links," with that said it also states "it is allowed". Generally aCharts should NOT be used, BUT in rare cases artists may have a hit single but not be notable enough themselves to be included in proper licensing archives. So aCharts will suffice. I do not know the status of this artist but check to see if proper archives are available. Ive reviewed Candyo's GA articles many times and im sure it was just overlooked. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have used Billboard directly, but the song is not covered on Billboard.
    • BallerStatus
Given it is an interview, I wanted to flesh out the background section.
Ok, happy with that as it's an interview.
    • Tiny Mix Tapes
Aggregate music reviewer Metacritic used, so I assume it is reliable.
Ok.
    • DJBooth
It looks pretty reliable, and I used it to expand critical reception due to lack of reviews, and it looks like the best bet to use.
But, how is it reliable? Who's Richard? Is he an expert? Is there editorial oversight? I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with these sources, which is why I'm asking you about them. This is the only one left that I'm concerned about.--BelovedFreak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a LLC so I'm assuming its credible. Candyo32 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By LLC do you mean limited liability company? If so, I'm not sure how that affects reliability. The kind of thing I'd be looking for is do they have a reputation for reliability, fact checking, editorial oversight? Are any of the people involved known to be experts?--BelovedFreak 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at WP:RSN.--BelovedFreak 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, two editors have their doubts, and no one has yet said it looks reliable. I think you're oing to have to lose this source, unless any new information proving its reliability comes up.--BelovedFreak 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a source for the release date?
Sourced in the release history. Candyo32 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place the nomination on hold to allow contributors to address the issues. Please let me know if you have questions or disagree with any of the above.--BelovedFreak 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]

The audip file should be reduce per WP:SAMPLE and the cover must be at most 300px, IANAL, but it is not in the domain public, per {{PD-textlogo}}? TbhotchTalk C. 20:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tbhotch, that's one thing I didn't know and one I forgot. Yes, the audio length should be no more than about 25 seconds. Is that what you meant by reduced or are you referring to the quality? (which I believe can be reduced by some kind of technical wizardry).--BelovedFreak 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I refered to the lenght, not to the quality, (I've not listened to yet). TbhotchTalk C. 20:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the logo being public domain, I don't know. That's something I will look into.--BelovedFreak 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for advice here. Thanks for bringing these things up though.--BelovedFreak 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both  Done
Ok, thanks. As far as the article passing, there is just the outstanding issue of the source above. On a personal level, I would appreciate it if you responded to the comment/query above re: the heading, and also the question I left on your talkpage about using words vs. digits for numbers. It's not a problem, but it's helpful to me for future music reviews, or articles I'm writing myself to understand where you're coming from. Also, one last thing: am I completely crazy, or is there a reason I can't find the references that are currently nos. 12 & 14; the billboard links? I wanted to unlink the publisher details per WP:OVERLINK, and make them consistent with the other billboard citation, but I can't find the citation to edit!--BelovedFreak 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LOL Smiley Face. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LOL_Smiley_Face&oldid=1204947464"