Talk:Easy (Sugababes song)

Fair use rationale for Image:EasyCD1Cover.jpg

Image:EasyCD1Cover.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing the article against the Good article criteria. I see that the article has a {{Expand section}} template in the reception section. While this makes the article a candidate for speedy decline of the review, I won't do that. Please allow me a short time to get this done and then I will post my comments. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   No need to say "first compilation album" because it's the band's only compilation album

   "The song was released on November 6, 2006" Clarify: --> "The song was released as a single on November 6, 2006"

   "Sugababes collaborated with Pebworth, Astasio and Taliaferro on a number of songs, of which two were chosen for the compilation album with "Easy" being released as the lead and only single from it." is too long of a sentence. Try "Sugababes collaborated with Pebworth, Astasio and Taliaferro on a number of songs; two were chosen for the album. "Easy" was released as the lead and only single from it."

   "was directed by the late Tim Royes" why do we need to know he's dead? It's not relevant for this article

   "The song was written by musicians Jason Pebworth and George Astasio".. This is the first sentence of the first section. The article should use the song title instead of "The song"

   "primarily contributed by Jason Pebworth and George Astasio" what does this mean? If primarily written, then say that

   "Thus the duo came up "with a few ideas for a couple of songs", including a "rough" concept for electro-influenced "Easy". " Why use archaic language such as "thus"?

   "as being done by" is unecyclopedic WP:TONE. Try to come up with something more formal

   "Like the group's fifth official single "Freak Like Me" " -- this is a parasentence, and highlights how weakly the prose has been assembled. It needs expanding into a complete paragraph, or merging into one of the other paragraphs

   Run your spell check. "eightie's"

   "Whilst" is archaic language, and needs updating to the 21st century

   "HMV's review: "'Easy' is the sound of Sugababes at their salicious best; sexual innuendos writhe around slick electro beats, with the girls delivering their most sensual vocal performance to date."" is a poorly structured sentence.

   Is it Orson or Orton? The article uses both

   There are 14 links to disambig pages that need fixing

   There are some redirects due to spelling mistakes that need fixing, such as "Something Kinda Oooh"

   "The single also garnered chart success in the Czech Republic, Netherlands and Sweden." is a parasentence.

   I stopped checking prose from this point, as it was getting more and more depressing

   B. MoS compliance:

   Don't WP:OVERLINK common words and terms such as country names and stuff like CD

   Why is the date format in the American style? It's a UK release performed and co-written by a British band. The article uses British language and the date format should reflect that

   Titles of television shows should be Italicised

   "of the BRIT Award-winning American rock band Orton" -- remove the WP:PEACOCKy "Brit Award-winning", and again, don't link common terms like American

   "It was mixed by Jeremy Wheatley - who previously mixed Sugababes singles "Hole in the Head" and "In the Middle" - with assistance..." WP:DASH

   Names of websites and publishers in both prose and references (such as Contactmusic.com, ilikemusic.com, BBC, and thisisfakediy should not be in italics unless they are Newspapers, magazines, TV shows, etc.

   The song title should be in double quotes. If it is mentioned while quoting a source, such as in a review, then use single quotes. "Sugababes' biggest single yet and is ten times better than "Push the Button."" becomes "Sugababes' biggest single yet and is ten times better than 'Push the Button'." "Easy sounds like a Sugababes typical..." becomes "'Easy' sounds like a Sugababes typical..."

   " a Sugababes typical - low-slung, sexy verses" WP:DASH again, even if it is part of a quote. We always use our in house style, even when quoting another source, unless we're making a point of showing their house style

   "In this case, pop-rock band-of-the-moment Orson lend their guitar sound" Do not place wikilinks in quotes

   "The following week, the week of the song's physical release, the band faced competition from rival girlbands with their latest singles - Girls Aloud's "Something Kinda Oooh" and All Saints' "Rock Steady" - in addition to the physical release of Madonna's "Jump", the song had an original midweek position of number nine but charted at the end of the week at number eight, overtaking Madonna who ended the week at number nine." is all one sentence.. Amazing..

   ""Easy" freefalled down the charts - dropping to number sixteen in its third week" -- please find something more suitable in WP:TONE than "Freefalled" WP:DASH again!

   Stop WP:OVERLINKING things that have been linked already, such as Orson, the bandmembers names, etc etc

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   "Thus the duo came up "with a few ideas for a couple of songs", including a "rough" concept..." if these are quotes, they need referencing

   http://www.ilikemusic.com/interviews/Sugababes_Amelle_interview_2006-3104 is called "Sugababes Amelle chats to I Like Music" not "I Like Music interview with Amelle Berrabah" which is what the reference says.

   The above reference is attributed to "ilikemusic.com" but the website calls itself "I Like Music", so we should too. Same with This Is Fake DIY

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   "the song has mid to fast-paced electro-dance-pop groove and it is composed in a key of F minor with a tempo of 118 beats per minute." is referenced to a website that sells stuff, implying that Wikipedia is favorable to this site than another such as Amazon, which we are not.

   http://www.discogs.com/Sugababes-Easy/release/1291951 discogs is user-edited, and in the same way that TV.com and IMDB are not reliable sources, neither is discogs

   Sugababes Unlimited appears to be a fansite and is therefore not a Reliable source

   http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17245&st=0&start=0 is a music forum, and is not a reliable source. It's being used as a cite for what Popjustice has said, so why can't you just cite Popjustice directly? Also, someone has posted that there and is violating Popjustice's copyright, so again, we can't link to it per WP:COPYVIO

   I'm not satisfied that http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/articles/albums/sugababes-overloaded-the-singles-collection is from a Reliable source

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6090000/newsid_6098900/6098934.stm is titled "Single review: Sugababes – Easy", not "CBBS Newsround".

   What makes http://www.themusicfix.co.uk/content/news/3509/sugababes-single-and-albums-in-november.html a reliable source?

   What makes http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/music-records/overloaded-the-singles-collection-sugababes/1425675/ a RS?

   What makes http://www.indielondon.co.uk/Music-Review/sugababes-overloaded-the-singles-collection a RS? In all these cases, if the sites do not have Wikipedia articles, it's often safe to say that they're either not notable, not reliable, or both.

   You can't use http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18885. It's a fan forum. You can't use it when they post copyrighted reviews from other places, and you can't use it to say "which in turn garnered comparisons to the look of Britney Spears in her critically acclaimed music video 'Toxic'" because it's not professional critical commentary, it's just personal fan opinion.

   C. No original research:

   "The song has mid to fast-paced electro-dance-pop groove and it is composed in a key of F minor with a tempo of 118 beats per minute." Everything that isn't about the bpm appears to be OR because the source doesn't verify it. It only verifies the bpm

   "due to a surge in early digital download sales." unsourced, so we don't know this is true.

   "The single also garnered chart success in the Czech Republic, Netherlands and Sweden." unsourced, OR

   The two paragraphs that describe the music video are entirely unsourced. Are there no reliable secondary sources that commented on the video?

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   "Like the group's fifth official single "Freak Like Me" " -- don't need to know this. It's irrelevant to the subject unless the song was purposefully written and perfomed this way

   ""Easy" outperformed the following previous Sugababes singles saleswise: "Caught in a Moment," "Follow Me Home," "In the Middle," "Shape" and "Soul Sound."[18] "Easy" outperformed the following previous Sugababes singles chart peak-wise: "Follow Me Home," "New Year," "Run for Cover," "Shape," "Soul Sound," and "Too Lost in You."[18]" Leave this to the discography page. It's T.M.I.

   "was directed by the late Tim Royes who previously directed for the group, in their music video for previous single "Red Dress"." We don't need to know he's dead, and we don't need to know he directed any of their other music videos.

   "Royes died shortly after the filming of "Easy" music video after being stuck by a car in New York City. The group later dedicated their music video for their number one single, "About You Now" to Tim. " None of this is important to this subject. It all happened independently and at a different time. Stick to the facts related to this song

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   None of the reception has anything negative. Have negative reviews been left out intentionally? Have negative comments in the reviews that are used been left out intentionally?

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All three files, the two images and the sound file, require stronger FURs to meet WP:NFCC#8. The CD cover image is too large. A smaller image should be uploaded over the original.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image in the infobox doesn't have a caption, but I don't know if that's because of limitations with the template. If it is, it's not an issue

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are many, many issues with this article, and is nowhere near the standard set out at WP:GA?. The prose is extremely weak, with grammar, style, vocabulary, and spelling issues. It violates the WP:MOS and many of its subpages. References are of alarmingly poor quality, many coming from fan pages, forum pages, or sites that do not meet our WP:RS guidelines or WP:V policy. I don't see how it can be possible to improve the article within a seven day hold period, so it makes more sense to immediately fail the nomination and allow the editors the opportunity to improve the article without the pressure of a specific timeframe. If you disagree with my decision, I am happy for you to bring it up at WP:Good article reassessment. Best of luck, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Easy (Sugababes song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I will review this tomorrow morning. AARON• ^TALK 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

General

• Two dab links.
• Perhaps add a release history table?

Lead

• It additionally peaked → I don't think "additionally" is needed here.
• in a restoom → It's a British group and the article (should be) written in British English, so use toilet. Lol.

Release

• a dubstremental → perhaps link this?

Critical reception

• I made a slight c/e on a few sections.

References

• FN4: Trinity Mirror needs linking..
• FN6: MTV work and publisher needs linking
• FN45: Has no publisher.

Summary

On hold. AARON• ^TALK 18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• All issues done with the exception of the release table which I can't do right now since I'm studying for something. Till 11:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Passing. AARON• ^TALK 12:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. Till 05:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easy (Sugababes song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419005418/http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/Sugababes/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/sugababes/

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) 01:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Easy (Sugababes song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307145905/https://www.7digital.com/artist/sugababes/release/easy-6 to http://www.7digital.com/artist/sugababes/release/easy-6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927063959/http://www.7digital.com/artist/sugababes/release/easy-1 to http://www.7digital.com/artist/sugababes/release/easy-1

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) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)