Talk:All I Ask/GA2

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am Carbrera, and I'll be reviewing this article for possible good article submission.

Full review coming very soon. Carbrera (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When can I expect the review?--MaranoFan (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very, very soon. Did you make any changes from the last GA review before renominating it again? Carbrera (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unsourced IP additions have been removed and there is more charting information.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Only since this review was opened and I said it should be quick failed, . — Calvin999  10:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * You can add a release date to this, such as the album's release date (or if it was released prior); check out Asking 4 It as an example if you'd wish.
 * Along with the addition of a release date should also be the song's format; in this case, it would be a "digital download", unless it was released to radio (add "airplay), as a CD (add "CD single"), etc.
 * You can add the year it was recorded in if the information is available; I'm sure you'll find something regarding this on the album's article page or perhaps on some source
 * Is Adele credited as "Adele Adkins" or simply "Adele"? If the latter, please remove "Adkins" from the writer's section

Paragraph 1

 * This statements contradicts what is in the infobox: "The song was written by Adele, Bruno Mars, Philip Lawrence and Christopher Brody Brown, and produced by Mars and Lawrence's songwriting and record producing team The Smeezingtons." According to the infobox, Bruno Mars in not the producer of the track, but according to this sentence, which is true? I realize that Mars and Lawrence are both part of this "songwriting and record producing team", but the way it is currently worded does not sound like that is what you're trying to convey; please reword asap
 * Who is "looking for one last night with a lover"? Please clarify; be specific. Also, I would refrain from using "the song is about...", doesn't "the song discusses..." sound clearer and more precise?
 * The song, the song, the song. You use "the song" quite a bit; remember, you can also use "the track", "the single", etc.
 * I feel like this paragraph jumps around quite a bit. Yes this is my opinion but the order of the lead is a bit "jumpy"

Paragraph 2

 * Instead of just listing the track's peak positions, you could add to the beginning something along the lines of ""All I Ask" was moderately successful after its release, peaking at number 41 on the UK Singles Chart and number 77 on the Billboard Hot 100." How does that sound to you?
 * The last sentence regarding "technical issues" and "controversy" is quite broad; I know you don't want to get overly detailed in the lead, but you could even add a few words here to make it a bit more understandable, perhaps adding a quick "what caused the issues" could appear here for a quick fix. Yes?
 * I don't feel that the part mentioning "charted in Australia, Finland, France, Ireland, Scotland, and Spain" is necessary, the reader will eventually locate that information after viewing the article–the two largest music sales platforms are already listed here (United States and United Kingdom).
 * Reword to "To promote the song, Adele performed it during Adele Live in New York City, on ''The Late Late Show with James Corden and The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards."

Paragraph 1

 * Again, it is unclear who is actually producing the song. Allow me to come up with a possible rewording: "Production of the track was handled by The Smeezingtons, a songwriting and record producing trio, consisting of Mars, Lawrence, and Ari Levine." It is important to mention Ari Levine as the current wording leaves him out and makes it sound like only Mars and Lawrence partake in the venture, not Levine.
 * You just mentioned "ballad" in the previous sentence, so repeating it as "a piano ballad" sounds a bit too repetitive here
 * I don't understand what the use of "understanding" is trying to convey here; perhaps you could reword this bit as well please?

Paragraph 2

 * Hannah McKee's mention sounds like it could be quote-worthy. The information listed regarding her reference to the track sounds too specific to be listed as a mere statement. What can be done here?
 * This paragraph is quite good, nothing major to add here!

Paragraph 3

 * Eh, this statement/sentence seems a bit out of place, appearing as a bit ugly to me here. Nothing is grammatically incorrect here, but could you just add it to the end of the previous paragraph so it doesn't look so out of place? Thank you.

Paragraph 1

 * The first quote has a few punctuation errors. There is something wrong here: "that resignation brings with it. and stated" (regarding a period [full stop] followed by an uncapitalized word "and"), plus shouldn't this be placed into quotes if it is a quote? To me, it looks like a plain quote, but there are no quotation marks surrounding it–please fix.
 * The last sentence here, involving Rob Garratt's review sounds better fit in the "background and composition" section as it regards the "piano patterns" of the song, and it being a "ballad".

Paragraph 2

 * The addition of "in a positive review," sounds unnecessary, all of the previous reviews were also positive, so there is no needed transition, correct?
 * The source used for the "Slate" reference could also be placed at the end of the lyrical interpretation in the first section, it wouldn't hurt to add it there as well! :)
 * This last sentence also seems to be a quote (or at least part of one), so quotation marks should be added where necessary please

Paragraph 3

 * Hmmm. All I've read so far are very positive reviews of the single. Are there any mixed or negative reviews of the song, I know I read somewhere that the Grammy performance was disliked (I think it was a Billboard review) so include any if available. It is wise not to pick or choose what is included in the article; I think this was mentioned in the previous GA review and I don't want to have to repeat his/her words.

Commercial performance

 * This section could be expanded as it faired quite well on several major charts (try to include dates, initial debuts, final peaks, etc.) please
 * Sure the song debuted on several charts, but did the song peak during its debut or after its debut? It's extremely important to note this so the reader doesn't think the debut was the peaked success of the song, when in turn, its success in North American generally occurred after the Grammys performance and not immediately following the release of Adele's 25. Make sure to note this where necessary.
 * Yes the song entered at number 65 in Australia, but it also peaked at that position as well :)
 * The statement towards the end following up on the Scottish Singles Chart again is out of place, you could instead mention the single's initial debut and then state when it peaked, how it peaked, and how long it lasted on the charts, the same with other major charts mentioned if applicable

Paragraph 1

 * Perhaps you could add something about NBC being an American television network since British readers may not be familiar with what NBC is
 * Very good paragraph, very good one indeed! Bravo!

Paragraph 2

 * "Carpool Karaoke" should be in quotation marks, just like how I previously labelled it.
 * The mention of technical issues is extremely brief here, seemingly briefer here than it is in the lead. You could greatly expand this remark and ideally explain what caused the technical issues that would eventually cause "controversy" and "criticism" from critics.

Paragraph 3

 * I have crossed out my previous comment as I did not read what the third paragraph was about first. However, couldn't these two paragraphs be placed together to prevent confusion, similar to the confusion that I just had haha? ;)
 * You could add a sentence before the two reviews regarding the Ellen performance, along the lines of "this performance also was well received..." blah, blah, etc.

Credits and personnel

 * The statement: "Credits adapted from the liner notes of 25." is not a complete sentence and therefore should not have a period (full stop) at the end of it, please remove the full stop.

Charts

 * You are not using the song templates that have been made for this specific purpose, check out Misery (Gwen Stefani song) for an example. I realize that some of the ones you listed are currently using the template, but other ones are not, such as "Australia" and the "Canada" one used
 * Mainly, "Hot Canadian Digital Songs" is not worded correctly; this one, however, does not have a template like I spoke of earlier. Again check out Misery (Gwen Stefani song) for an example. The big issues is that Canada starts with a 'C' but it isn't alphabetized in it's current position, plus "Hot" should be removed altogether from the usage, it should clearly label "Canadian Digital Songs" (Billboard)" instead, along with a proper link to the article as mentioned previously

End of GA Review:
Upon the controversy that came with me simply reviewing this article, I expected the main issue to be (regarding this article of course) about notability of the song. For sure does "All I Ask" pass the notability guidelines. Definitely. However, this article isn't all that bad. Yes, I have suggested quite a few things and recommended some changes that should keep the nominator busy for awhile, but there really isn't anything horribly off-key with this article. If you'd like to question my review bullet points, go for it–that's what they are there for. I can see this article passing, but not at its current state. If the nominator fixes it, I'm sure it'll pass, no doubt there. I'll be placing it on hold for seven days, until then, feel free to contact me regarding my review, here. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC).
 * All addressed, .--MaranoFan (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Other comments
The article still needs a fair amount of work before the prose attains the "clear and concise" GA criterion. Some specifics:
 * Lead:
 * first paragraph, final sentence: this reads as if Wickman is part of the lyrics, rather than giving his opinion of what they mean.
 * I've rephrased this part. JAG  UAR   11:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * second paragraph, last two sentences: these are related, and should probably be recast to go together. They should also be written more directly. Did the performance really "garner controversy", or was it criticized for the sound quality? "It was revealed" is weasel wording: just say "Adele stated afterward" (I like that better than "Adele tweeted afterward").
 * Rephrased and restructured. I'm not sure if it garnered controversy but either way that should be fine to leave in. JAG  UAR   11:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Background and composition:
 * second sentence: the punctuation before "however" should be either a semi-colon or a period
 * Fixed. JAG  UAR   11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please combine the "datedly derivative" phrase with the "strays from Adele's early work" sentence; the two criticisms by Garratt fit together
 * Done and restructured. JAG  UAR   11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Clash review was written by Gareth James; reviews are generally by people, not magazines, so the person should be the one who said something, not the magazine.
 * Agreed, rephrased. JAG  UAR   11:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Critical reception:
 * First sentence: the song doesn't seek anything. One of the characters in it might. This same sentence, in different form, was problematic in the lead. Also, the first two sentences use "opined". A simple "wrote" is usually much better than "opined".
 * I've rephrased some uses of "opined" and replaced song with "singer", seeing as that was previously addressed. JAG  UAR   11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Greenblat comment: I have no idea what "much more expected" means, so this sentence makes no sense to me. Something needs to be fixed, or perhaps the phrase deleted entirely.
 * I couldn't make sense of this no matter how hard I thought about it, so I had to remove the phrase. JAG  UAR   11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Live performances:
 * second paragraph, third sentence ("I love you Kendrick"): this is trivia and should almost certainly be deleted
 * Removed JAG  UAR   11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * next sentence: "garnered controversy due to technical issues"—see comment on the lead, which applies here as well
 * Elaborated. JAG  UAR   11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

—BlueMoonset (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the remaining comments in MaranoFan's absence. What do you think of it now? If there is anything else you would like to add, please let me know. JAG  UAR   11:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Jaguar, when you changed "opined" to "opinionated" (past-tense verb to pejorative adjective), I went to the source to see what Garratt actually wrote, and I couldn't find any comparison of the song to Adele's early work, so I deleted that phrase. While there I noticed that "tidy and fast piano patterns" was an unattributed lift from Garratt's "tidy, fast piano patterns" (now properly quoted), and I had to extend the final quote to include "ballad".
 * With that level of close paraphrasing, I thought to check further, and a likely spot was the start of the second Background and composition paragraph. It seemed unlikely to me that the statement about the song's inspiration was Billy Joel should be in Wikipedia's voice; rather, it sounded like a reviewer opinion and should be couched as such. So I looked at the two sources given. The first, a Jody Rosen album review, doesn't mention Joel (it does have a nice description—Adele's "singing is at its most luminous" on the song), but does have the article's phrase "strips back the instrumentation to piano only", missing only a "the". The Rob LeDonne review of Adele's live show in NYC is the source of the Billy Joel comparison (a parenthetical one), so it's a reviewer's opinion and not something Adele herself noted; this review also says "what strikes you is how different her songs sound from the rest of modern pop", which while written in the context of hearing the song live refers to her entire oeuvre, not just "All I Ask"; again, the last six words are copied without attribution. In the Critical reception section, I ended up getting rid of the entire Greenblatt sentence, as what remained doesn't reflect what she said: "melancholia" is a mental condition, while "melancholy" in the given context means "suggestive or expressive" of sadness, dejection, or even being pensive.
 * Until all this is fixed, the close paraphrasing alone is enough to prevent the article's passage, as would be the misinterpretation of the sources. And these examples are probably only the tip of the iceberg. Given the above, the minimum further checking that's needed is that every review source be checked against the text here: single-word omissions or additions will throw off automated checkers like Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the Duplication Detector, but are very evident to the naked eye, since the wording is otherwise the same. If you look at the article as it was on January 15 here, you can see how these sections started out as mostly quotes; unfortunately, the attempts to paraphrase have been highly problematic, and these problems may well have extended to material added later. I would also recommend spot-checking other sourcing, just to be safe.
 * Finally, the Live performances section should be tightened a bit, especially the final paragraph. Since both reviews of the Ellen performance use "slays", it would be best to combine them into a single sentence (Rappler doesn't give the reviewer's name?) that quotes that one word, and then go on with the Ceron addition. The wording should generally be in the past tense here and also in the song review section (no "adding" or "writing"; it should be "added" and "wrote"), but I think that "slays" can remain in present with careful wording around it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been on hold officially for over a week. What should be done with this now, considering the nominator's ban? Carbrera (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Carbrera, if you want, you can give Jaguar a full seven days from April 26 to address the new issues I raised above, which would give him until the end of May 3. If nothing has happened by then, my advice would be to fail it: the article has serious issues, notably significant close paraphrasing. So far, it has been GA nominated twice, and has been picked up for review within a day each time. I would expect it would be equally attractive to reviewers on its third go-round. However, before its next nomination, it should be fixed so that all of the issues raised above have been addressed, if it is to avoid a legitimate quickfail next time around. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be following @BlueMoonset's suggestion if that is alright with you. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since MaranoFan has left Wikipedia, we both agreed that it would be OK to let this go. I'm afraid I don't have the time to commit to this, so you can close it. JAG  UAR   17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will carryout with a close. Thank you all for your beautiful and detailed assistance during the review process for this article. I look forward to further improvements being made to this article in the future. Carbrera (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quick fail - I'm sorry to interject, Carbrera. This article has not been touched since 22 March 2016, today is 8 April 2016. There have been multiple unsourced changes made by IPs - they are in fact the most recent edits as well - and the nominator (nor anyone else I may add) has reverted the vandalism is this several week time frame between last edit and nomination. No attempt has been made by the nominator to improve the article at all since it failed its previous nomination. Willy-nilly nominations are not acceptable. I do not expect to see any comments saying that this is a personal attack or trolling or "getting in your way," because I and many other editors have made this kind of decision on countless other nominations before when spur of the moment ones have been conducted without any improvement to the article. As it currently stands, it is failing multiple points of the Good Article Criteria.

To the nominator: Advice for any nomination. You must thoroughly go through any article prior to nomination. This involves researching, writing, copy-editing, reading and re-reading (potentially many times). You can't just nominate an article because you feel like it. Do not un-do this decision. It won't help your cause in being taken as a "serious editor" and you still wouldn't have improved the article. So, my good-faith advice is to actually spend time on improving this article (and I don't mean 10 or 15 minutes making it look pretty) which could take a couple of days, and then nominate it again once you have done this. — Calvin999 08:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the above quick-fail. It was another form of WP:HOUND. Carbrera, you may continue with this review.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't have the right to tell him he can continue when I have quick failed it and explained why. — Calvin999  09:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , seriously, you can't fail somebody else's review unless either the reviewer or nominator have been inactive for a long period of time. Only the reviewer has the deciding verdict, no matter how many people intervene. Let Carbrera do his review, you had no right no quick fail it on his behalf. JAG  UAR   12:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let Carbrera conduct a review and give the nominator time to address concerns and make improvements to the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jaguar I thought I asked you to not make contact with me? MF nominated an article that hasn't been touched for over 2 weeks and has not been improved since the previous GAN. Carry on seeing what you want to see. — Calvin999  18:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)