Talk:(You've) Never Been in Love Like This Before/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @VirreFriberg - what are your thoughts on the issue raised at 2b below? Before going on to the rest of the review, it'd be good to clarify the matter. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Ganesha811! Thank you for reviewing this article!
 * 1. The Radio London site provided the chart positions for the Big L pirate radio station based on the notes of people who actually worked there. I used it to emphasize the importance of pirate radio stations and pop music at the time. However, pirate radio stations are not authorative whatsoever which means this source (and the Pirate Radio chart listing) could potentially be removed from the article.
 * 2. The CD sources (liner notes) were used as they're largely authorative, considering they were released by major record labels (I.E licensed and not bootlegs). They were released by Deram Records, (sublabel of Decca Records, the label Unit 4 + 2 were signed to during the 90s) alongside Repertoire Records and Cherry Red Records sublabel RPM, both of whom specialize in 60s reissues. The liner notes contain some of the few biographies about the group. Most the songs are usually mentioned only in passing during the essays.
 * I'll address the issues you've cited once I have time (given my somewhat hectic university schedule), so I apologize beforehand for any delays! VirreFriberg (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response! I think it's probably best to remove the Radio London source and the material dependent on it. As to the CD liner notes, I can 100% believe that they're accurate, but do you think they are sufficiently independent to base so much of the article on? I would say say they're primary sources, which means that this may be an WP:OR issue as well. What do you think? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, @Ganesha811. I wouldn't necessarily call the liner notes primary sources, but rather secondary as they were compiled from several prior primary sources (IE record chart listings, newspapers etc). From my understanding it's impossible for a retrospective release to be the primary source. VirreFriberg (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm still not thrilled about it, but AGF and I think it's reasonable to call them secondary sources. Will double-check on neutrality during prose review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)