Talk:The Man Who Never Lied/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James086 (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, is it really worth calling the song both pop and pop rock? I think just "pop rock" would suffice.
"with some of them praising its chorus" - I think this would be better as "... positive reviews from music critics, particularly for its chorus."

Done — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"West provided additional production under his production name Sweetwesty" - the repetition of production makes this sound awkward, could it be rephrased?
"Additional keys and programming were assisted by Max Martin and Sam Farrar respectively." - The word assisted is wrong here, perhaps "performed"?
Throughout the article there is inconsistent usage of quotation marks around song titles, I believe that there should always be quotes around the title.
Per WP:MOSNUM the time in the prose should be either "three minutes and twenty-five seconds" or "3:25", not "three minutes and 25 seconds"
I think the last sentence of Background and production would be better as: "Sheffield considers it a "dubious message..."
I have concerns about this article's notability. It has not been the subject of the reviews (the album is the subject). Most of the references mention the song in just one sentence. While this is acceptable for citing information, it is not sufficient to assert notability. I think it would be better served as a section on Overexposed (album). Having charted in South Korea is not really significant because it was caused by sales of the album, not by its individual sales. James086 ^Talk 16:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There are 8 sources (7 are for reviews 1 is from musicnotes) that is related directly to the article. Also the booklet and the background information is notable. THe song also charted HIGH (at number 9) without any promotion. The article can stay on its own! If the song is present in the reviews of the album, those are also the song's reviews. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the reviews are actually focused on this song though. They only mention this song in passing, it is not the subject of the articles (the album is the subject of the articles). Album reviews are not the same as song reviews, this is a song review because the subject of the review is the one song (not the album that the song appears on). The conclusion of the review is about the song Moves Like Jagger, not about the whole album. If there were reviews of the song like this Moves Like Jagger review then it would prove notability. Also, the song charted because it was part of the album and when South Koreans buy a whole album, every song on the album is pushed up the sales charts (or am I mistaken?). James086 ^Talk 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This has one sentence of critique.
[2] No review of the song, only mentions what it is about without any analysis.
[3] Again, no review or analysis of the song beyond the single sentence quoted in the article.
[4] This source says the song is catchy (as part of a list of the catchy songs on the album that might be considered for release as a single)
[5] The song was "enjoyable" and Levine was aided by Passovoy. No analysis or review
[6] No analysis or review, Dennill thinks it sounds like other Maroon 5 songs.
[7] I'm not sure what "saturated rave bliss" is, but it's hardly enough to claim that this song has been the subject of "significant coverage".
[8] This one has analysis of the song! "'Daylight' and 'The Man Who Never Lied' feel anonymous despite their stadium-sized choruses," but that's hardly enough to claim notability, three separate songs are critiqued in that sentence, and never mentioned again in the article.

Could another editor please comment on the notability aspect please? Masking seems to be at play. James086 ^Talk 12:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very technically speaking, notability isn't a GA criterion, but it seems silly to complete a full review if you feel it's not likely to be kept in an AfD. Glancing quickly at those sources, your concerns appear to me to be valid ones, though there may be just enough here to scrape by. My advice would be to put this on hold and nominate it at AfD for a "trial by fire". Once there's community consensus on whether or not to keep it, you can proceed with the review (or not). I don't know if there's any traditional or recommended procedure for this, though, that may supercede my suggestion, so feel free to ignore! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so here. James086 ^Talk 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at the afd. I am seeing a lot of these songs being nominated for good status on the back of only album reviews and to my mind they clearly fail the WP:GNG. As far as the GA review goes notability is not really an issue, but it can impact the broadness. If it is kept because it is found to meet the GNG then I would just continue with the review. If it is kept because it meets WP:NSongs (in this case because it charted in South Korea there my be a presumption that South Korean sources confer notability), then you can probably fail it ion broadness grounds. AIRcorn (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn raises a good point. I'll leave the article on hold for another week for South Korean sources/reviews to be found. If none exist, then I'll pass it anyway. If no SK reviews exist then it's unfair to fail it because they can't be found. James086 ^Talk 10:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SK reviews? Are you kidding me? First of all I don't have a single word, no a single letter in South Korean. That's enough reason to can't find South Korean reviews. I will try to search for other reviews in English maybe I will find smthg. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Critical reception section before considering passing this. Almost every sentence has something wrong with it, making some of the sentences almost impossible to understand: "an "enjoyable numbers""; ""The Man Who Never Lied" together with "One More Night" are presentation "that Maroon 5"; "had leaved"; "According to him that’s an effect of the market they have chosen to contribute on". Notability may be up for debate, but the prose must attain a basic level of quality. EddieHugh (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the prose issues and since notability isn't a GA criterion I've passed it. James086 ^Talk 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]