Talk:Up Where We Belong

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Upwherewebelongcover.jpg[edit]

Image:Upwherewebelongcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Please don't revert cited material without reason. If you want to add any other genres, you need sources per WP:RS. 183.171.176.59 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Up Where We Belong. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and accolades, Sainte-Marie the first known Native American to win an Oscar.[edit]

Two months later, on April 11, the songwriters won the Academy Award for Best Original Song,[27] making Sainte-Marie the first known Native American to win an Oscar.[28]

Despite this claim being properly cited and sourced from a published, in print book (Hirschfelder, Arlene; Molin, Paulette (2012), The Extraordinary Book of Native American Lists, Scarecrow Press, p. 35) Buffy Sainte-Marie was born on the Piapot Plains Cree First Nation Reserve in Saskatchewan, Canada.

As noted in Native American name controversy as well as the acknowledgment of Hirschfelder and Molin's book, p. xii, this term is typically used solely to describe the indigenous peoples within the boundaries of the present-day United States of America.

I'm inclined to remove this as trivial (WP:TRIV) rather than call Sainte-Marie the first 'indigenous person of the Americas' to win an Oscar. BoboLink81 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for pointing out this distinction. I'll remove it. —Danaphile (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Up Where We Belong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comments some recurring themes, especially tone issues making some of it sound like fancruft or a tabloid review.

  • "It reached record stores.." it would be more encyclopedic to just say that it was released in July to coincide with the film's release.
    • done
  • "There were many temporary setbacks " this feels tautological to me, I would just remove "temporary" altogether.
    • done
  • "The film's director didn't think Warnes" avoid contractions.
    • done
  • Not sure one third of the lead should be all about the setbacks. The lead, per WP:LEAD is designed to give a broad summary of the whole article, this does not right now.
    • scaled back - summary expanded
  • In fact, the tone of the second lead para is very colloquial indeed, not really encyclopedic at all.
    • scaled back
  • "It also sold one million copies " probably "more than"
    • done
  • "so this was a special moment." tone issues.
    • reworded
  • " no money in the film's budget" -> "no remaining budget"
    • done
  • "He forged ahead" tone.
    • done
  • "Director Taylor Hackford was not budgeted for a ..." is that AmEng? I would say "... had not... " rather than "was not".
    • reworded
  • "Among the half dozen songs" tone, six.
    • reworded
  • " the Oscar-nominated" since you're using a colloquial term, link it.
    • done
  • "of the movie brought " film.
    • done
  • ""I wanted to have a song at the end of this film that would cap that romantic spirit. Jack Nitzsche and Buffy Saint-Marie, his then-wife, had written the theme for this, and I wanted a song based on that theme."[12] Nitzsche wanted" wanted ... wanted ... wanted... repetitive prose.
    • reworded
  • The interpretation in the first para of the lead is not quite what the only sourced interpretation gives in the "Composition and lyrics" section...
    • changed
  • "was a much tougher sell" tone.
    • removed
  • "three weeks at number one during its 23 weeks " 3/23 or three/twenty-three per MOSNUM.
    • done
  • Link "certification".
    • done
  • " 250,000 copies. [23] " remove space before ref.
    • done
  • "Their tune also" tune??
    • reworded
  • " came in at " tone.
    • reworded
  • General thinking: the article is predominantly quotes, probably too much really.
    • took out or reworded over a dozen quotes
  • Weekly charts table is initially out of order (UK before U.S...)
    • removed periods from U.S. as other FA song pages have done
  • Same for 1983 year-end chart.
    • see previous item
  • Row and col scopes would be great per MOS:ACCESS in all these tables, so they are accessible to people viewing using screenreaders.
    • done
  • Certification column would be better sorting silver-gold-platinum, rather than simply alphabetically.
    • I looked at a handful of other FA song pages, and they alphabetized by country. I think it's because, if you look, for example, at the three countries with Gold certification here, the totals in the Certified Units column are different for all three.
  • Bebe & Cece -> BeBe & CeCe..
    • done
  • In refs, " p. 152-153." (for example) should use pp. for multiple pages, and an en-dash, not a hyphen for a numerical range.
    • done

Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review, these comments are from a quick run-through, once we're through these, I can take another more detailed look. So, it's on hold for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the time you're dedicating to this. I have started on some of your suggestions and should be able to get to all of them over the next few days. Danaphile (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the items listed above and will be taking time off from 11/18 to 11/23. I appreciate having my work reviewed and look forward to additional suggestions. Danaphile (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Online refs should have either publication or accessdate (both is permitted), but not neither, e.g ref 1. Check throughout.
    • done
  • No spaced hyphens per MOS:DASH. There's one in the main part of the article too.
    • I'm seeing two spaced hyphen changes made by The Rambling Man on 18 Nov. If there are others, let me know.
  • Refs 62 & 63 are the same, so re-use!
    • done
  • Ref 68, dash in year range.
    • done
  • Ref 71 - CeCe, not Cece.
    • done
  • You spell out entities like BPI but not RIAA, be consistent.
    • The only place I'm seeing "riaa" in the references is in 19 that refers to riaa.com. If there are others, let me know.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this, and thanks for your edits to the article itself. I look forward to any further revisions I can make. Danaphile (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with the updates and the article in general. Apologies for the delay, I have some off-wiki issues. In any case, I'm promoting to GA, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I appreciate your time and efforts with this process. Great working with you. Danaphile (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Up_Where_We_Belong&oldid=1205850371"