Talk:All in Love Is Fair/GA1

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

Reviewer: HeyJude70 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe I addressed your concerns:
 * I took care of all edits minus the "Cover version" section with this edit
 * And here I turned the section into a list so a bit of the additional details could still be included for the reader
 * Thanks so much for the review! I appreciate it so much! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC).
 * I have updated the review in accordance with your edits. I believe it is now worth of Good Article status, however as I am relatively new to this process I will leave the discussion open for a couple of days just to allow for anything I missed to be pointed out. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Other comments
I am currently at work writing comments about some additional issues that need to be addressed before the article meets the GA criteria, including issues regarding the prose and the article's lead. I'll post them as soon as possible, but I wanted to be sure the nomination was not closed before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead section

 * "It was praised by several music critics": the article lists one negative and two positive comments, so "several" is a stretch here.
 * Done
 * The new sentence, Receptions towards the single was mixed, with author James E. Perone describing it as "autobiographical" and Robert Christgau labeling his vocal ability as "immature"., has its own problems. You've replaced this with "mixed", which not only also strikes me as a stretch, but it doesn't really reflect what now comes after. The Perone characterization of "autobiographical" isn't positive or negative, so it doesn't contribute to the "quality" rating. Both quoted words seem to me to have lost their context: "autobiographical" here is going to be read as a statement that the song is about Wonder, while the original ""pure, autobiographical-sounding vocal showpiece" only says that it sounds like it could be autobiographical; "immature" here could refer to the voice itself sounding vocally immature, while the context given in Reception is that Wonder's vocal interpretation of the ballad was immature. Are there any sources that give the overall reaction? If not, getting a larger universe of opinions in the Reception section for the Wonder version would help support a characterization of "mixed", "mostly positive", or whatever. Also a minor suggestion: don't start with "Receptions towards". BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, when you quote anyone, even in the lead, you have to include an inline source citation by the end of the sentence in question. It doesn't matter if the same words are quoted in the body of the article as well; any quotes or controversial statements in the lead need to be sourced.
 * Done


 * Did Dionne Warwick in fact record the song on an album? The Cavacini post just points to a YouTube video of Warwick, and there's nothing about a Warwick recording in the "Cover versions" section of the article. If one exists, it should be added; if not, maybe she shouldn't be listed here.
 * Done


 * The antecedent for "Equally praised" is very unclear. If you mean Streisand's version was praised with the same enthusiasm as Wonder's version, mention him by name; you have Warwick, Wilson, and Laine also listed in the previous paragraph. I'm also wondering where that evaluation comes from: the article has less praise for Wonder (the "immature" complaint) than for Streisand. There may be some comparisons of Wonder and Streisand around (such as the "almost as interesting as the original" quote), but the best thing may be to drop "Equally praised" and just talk about Streisand's version here.
 * Done
 * The new sentence, Regarding its reception, some music critics compared it to Wonder's original version., tells us nothing. While you should discuss the reception per MOS:LEAD, since it's a section in the body, it tells us nothing about how the critics thought the cover compared to the original: was it as good, were some aspects better or worse, and so on. This doesn't need to be long, but it needs to give some meat. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "found it to be a highlight among her catalog" is a very strong statement, but I don't see anything in the Streisand section of the body of the article that backs this up. There should be at least a couple of reviewers or biographers saying this.
 * Done


 * According to the Streisand section of the article, her single peaked on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 63, it didn't enter at that level; ditto for the Canadian chart. This needs to be fixed.
 * Done
 * Thanks. This calls the single "commercially successful", while the body of the article says "achieved moderate commercial success", which is a less favorable assessment. The lead and the body should agree. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done

Release and competition

 * Anything about how the Brazil single sold? Could it have charted?
 * Not to my knowledge. If you find anything with this information then please by all means add it to the article. I'm thorough in my research when creating articles. Carbrera (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC).


 * The sentence about the lyrics is opaque: "to spread the message across" is unclear; I'm not sure what is being said here.
 * Done


 * The final sentence starts "Similarly," yet I don't see a connection between finding "dramatic intensity" in the previous sentence and the simple inclusion of the track's lyrics in a section on "lessons in love", which are not always dramatic.
 * Done

Reception and further promotion

 * The first sentence has a quote from Christgau, yet it was not sourced. As noted earlier, quotes need to be sourced by the end of the sentence they appear in (or the end of the quote if it runs more than one sentence).
 * Done


 * The phrase "On the contrary" should be deleted. I can't tell whether it's editorializing or an awkward transition, but it doesn't work, and nor does that entire Perone sentence: what does "notable" even mean in this context? I'm not sure "claimed" in the next sentence is the right word (I can't check the source for meaning): why not use "wrote"? The word "claim" tends to cast doubt on the statement.
 * Done


 * We don't typically consider blogs and bloggers to be reliable sources; I'm not entirely sure what Cavacini is doing here to begin with, and his quote is particularly sweeping. However, the statement in the article (in Wikipedia's voice) that he "referred to Dionne Warwick's interpretation of the song as the primary example" is clear overreach: it's merely Cavacini's "favorite interpretation of the song", which he also says is "simply gorgeous".
 * Done – I reworded it per your suggestion but kept the review because you didn't state otherwise. Carbrera (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave you the opportunity to state why you thought Cavacini should be a reliable source despite being a blogger. If you cannot support the source as reliable, the natural conclusion is that it should not remain in the article, nor the material that came from it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There isn't any Motown compilation with the title Baddest Love James; I think that should be Baddest Love Jams both here and in the reference.
 * Done


 * "this time being on disc two of the collection": why is this relevant? Even if it had been on a different disc in another collection, it's an unnecessary detail.
 * Done

Cover versions

 * The first three versions listed here: Wilson, Laine, and Eckstine, were all recorded in 1974, the year after the song was released on Innervisions. Perhaps an opening sentence noting this fact might be in order. If Warwick released it in 1974, then add her to the mix. If she did released it on an album, add an entry for her here. I am wondering why this section is a list rather than prose.
 * It was originally in prose but the reviewer suggested I form a list instead. Carbrera (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Wilson bullet needs a bit of work. I'm not sure why she's listed as "American singer" here; why are some nationalities specified and others not? "…for her 39th studio album of the same name." She's released 39 studio albums with the title Nancy Wilson? If this album was named All in Love Is Fair, then why not say she named the album after the song? The phrase "was favorable of the cover" needs revision, the "wouldn't be" quote doesn't close. The final sentence—an obscure joke and trivia rather encyclopedic—should probably be deleted; if retained, then "that it the scenario" needs fixing. Generally, there shouldn't be wikilinks within quotes, and "Motown" here is an overlink.
 * Done


 * The Cleo Laine sentence is a bit of a run-on; this needs to be "clear and concise" per the GA guidelines.
 * Done


 * I think the Eckstine and Benton bullets could be tightened a bit; "that was placed" is an example of wording that feels unencyclopedic.
 * Done

Barbara Streisand version: Background and recording

 * Having "Specifically" following so quickly after "specifically created" is not good; please recast.
 * Done


 * When doing an mdy date, there should be some punctuation after the year, typically a comma unless a period or other mark is more appropriate: "recorded on December 14, 1973, at"
 * Done


 * I'm puzzled by this sentence: "Since time was limited, the aforementioned record consists of several non-album compositions recorded by Streisand." What is a "non-album composition"? Is it a song/composition that has never been released on any album anywhere, by anyone? Or is it merely a song that was recorded by Streisand at some time in the past, but had not yet found its way onto an album and could therefore be used to fill out the contents? Please rewrite so the situation is more clear.
 * Done

Reception

 * The Greenwald review is very hard to characterize, and the quote seems to be more about the hook and Streisand's performance of it rather than the song itself, but perhaps not entirely. Either way, "applauded the singer's decision to cover the song" doesn't seem to be anywhere in Greenwald's actual text; I'd suggest recasting this to refer directly to the hook before the quote (maybe even quote that lyric), and perhaps refer to the fact that the song was a favorite of Greenwalds in the Wonder version prior to hearing Streisand's "unforgettable" performance.
 * Done


 * "labeled it as": either "wrote that it was" or "said it was"
 * Done


 * At the beginning of the second paragraph, "received" seems like the wrong word: "achieved" seems better to me.
 * Done


 * "for an additional three more weeks": this is repetitive; please revise
 * Done


 * "where it served its final week on the Hot 100 before departing it altogether": a more direct phrasing would be something like "after which it left the Hot 100."
 * Done


 * "peaked at number ten." Chart numbers have consistently been rendered in digits; this should be "number 10". An argument could be made for writing out numbers from one to nine per the MOS, but the dividing line is between nine and ten. You could write out numbers up to one hundred if you wanted to, but it needs to be consistent.
 * Done


 * "and April 27 of the same year": please change to "and two weeks later, on April 27,"
 * Done


 * it's important to state whether the five weeks on the Canadian chart were consecutive or not. There is no clear indication one way or the other here.
 * Done

Promotion

 * "occurred on side two of": again, "side two" is unnecessary detail. Please replace with "was on". I would also replace the earlier "outside of" with "after".
 * Done

Summation
This is quite a bit to have been found after a reviewer has declared the article to be GA quality. The prose is supposed to be "clear and concise" throughout—that's a GA basic—but there are numerous places where it is not, and some of the facts are not consistent between the lead and the body of the article. Before further reviews are attempted, an examination of how these issues were missed would seem to be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi BlueMoonset, I was the original reviewer for this article. As you may be able to tell from my first comment at the end of my review, I am very new to this process. My skills are building, but they are obviously not at an adequate standard. I left the discussion open for this article in the hope that another, more experienced user such as yourself would point out the mistakes I made. Unfortunately, they were far greater than I expected. I thank you though, for you have taught me a far better method of reviewing articles that I hope to use if I am still permitted to review articles. I will learn from my mistakes, and I will be sure to be much more thorough in future reviews. Thank you for taking the time to overlook my review and leave your own review, and thank you for pointing out my errors, they will help me become better at this. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all of your concerns. And while I appreciate the additional input, I must admit that I found some of your commentary to be unnecessarily rude. You are welcome to look over any and all actions/edits I performed. Carbrera (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
 * and – Everything has now been addressed and the questionable source has been removed. Carbrera (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Carbrera, please let me know which comments you considered "unnecessarily rude". I didn't believe I was being rude, but if you felt I was it would help to have some examples to know what you found offensive. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think my perception is too warped. I feel like some of your comments above were condescending and exceedingly elaborate. I also feel like after our interactions with my GA reviews, you have some towards of resentment or changed opinion of me. Like, If Carbrera can't even review an article properly, what makes him think he can write one?.
 * Mainly: "There isn't any Motown compilation with the title Baddest Love James; I think that should be Baddest Love Jams both here and in the reference." – This came off as extremely condescending towards me. You could've easily said "I believe you accidentally misspelt Jams" instead of adding insult to injury
 * "I'm puzzled by this sentence..." – You obviously knew what I meant by this (and you state exactly what I meant by this afterwards); again, you could have wrote "Please rewrite this sentence", "Could you reword xxxxxx?", etc.
 * Your summation where you state "The prose is supposed to be clear and concise" is an obvious jab at my writing abilities; I like to think I'm a good writer/editor on Wikipedia but apparently they're subpar, along with my GA reviewing capabilities
 * And in response: "Well, I gave you the opportunity to state why you thought Cavacini should be a reliable source despite being a blogger." → I don't recall you asking for a reason; in fact, you stated "I'm not entirely sure what Cavacini is doing here to begin with"
 * Listen. I like to think I'm a very carefree individual. I don't hold grudges and I don't hoard any bitterness towards you. Reading this, I feel like you were desperately trying to find errors or mistakes with my work to the point where it came across as nitpicking. Maybe you think I'm wrong or maybe you think I'm right. Regardless, this is how I feel and I can't help that. I don't want to make a big deal out of this, and I don't want it to get any bigger than it already is, so I'm going to leave it at that. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Carbrera, I don't see how I can change your perceptions, but it seems clear from what you've said above that you do believe I have some sort of a vendetta against you, though nothing could be further from the truth—your statement "I feel like you were desperately trying to find errors or mistakes with my work" is ruder than anything you believe I've said above. I did an honest pass through the article and found places where I thought the prose and interpretation of the sources fell short of the GA criteria, which I then wrote down. I actually came to this review because HeyJude70 had just had a submitted GAN quickfailed, and I was concerned that if an article had been submitted that missed the GA criteria by such a margin, a review might also fall short in terms of understanding the criteria and how to apply them. It was a complete coincidence that the first review I came to happened to be your article; it could have been another one. As for your individual points:
 * I should have said "I think this is a typo" on the "James" vs. "Jams" spelling. It wasn't meant to be condescending, but I can certainly see how it could be read that way. You're right: simplicity is better. I tend to write elaborately as a matter of course and don't always try to cut it down after the initial draft. I'll try to do better in future, but no promises.
 * "I'm puzzled by this sentence": I was quite puzzled by the sentence when I read it. I ultimately suggested a couple of distinct possibilities there, once I tried to work out what was meant, and left it to you to do the ultimate description. The thing is, I didn't know, I only guessed—it appears from your words I guessed right with one of them.
 * The point about "clear and concise" was addressed to HeyJude70, as was the entire summation, and is taken from the wording of the start of GA criterion 1a: the prose is clear and concise. I didn't use it as an insult regarding your writing abilities: everyone writes sentences that lack clarity or go on longer than they should. (I can be especially guilty of the latter in my talk page or review writing.) I was talking about the standard that is supposed to be reviewed against, and the summation was primarily intended for the original reviewer.
 * What I said originally regarding Cacavini was that "We don't typically consider blogs and bloggers to be reliable sources". If you don't see that as questioning whether the source should remain (and the associated material), I'll obviously have to be more direct next time, but it seemed to me a bit disingenuous of you to say that you were keeping the source because I hadn't told you to drop it, hence my reply.
 * We've not had a particularly good history at the GA space—I have had troubles with a couple of your reviews of nominations—and after this, I don't see it improving much since you're taking my genuine attempts to help improve the article to GA quality as "desperate" and "nitpicking". The thing about a review is it's supposed to point up existing imperfections and places to be improved for the purpose of getting an article to a GA level. If you're going to take these comments as attempts to shame you personally or belittle your writing abilities—they're most emphatically not—rather than to help improve the article, going through the GA process is going to be painful, rather than a collaborative process where a regular article goes in one end and hopefully a GA comes out the other. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we take it to your talk page or mine. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to apologize to HeyJude70; I never meant for all this to happen here. As you can see, reviewing can be a contentious process, and one where feelings can be hurt in the process. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your apology BlueMoonset, and I would also like to thank you for the time you spent fixing this review. I must ask, in your opinion have all the issues outlined above been addressed? I know there was some difficult exchanges but I would like to hope that a concensus has been reached. Also, the unchanged list of Cover songs was a change that was initially suggested by me. I took inspiration for this from articles such as We Can Work It Out, which showcases the less-notable cover versions in list format. Thank you for your patience in these matters. On a sidenote, I would also like to let you know that the quick-failed GA article I nominated was more for the advice to fixing it, as I knew it was not of GA quality. I know now this was out of line, and it is a mistake I will not make again. Thank you for checking my previous actions and insuring this review was not another mistake, you've been most helpful. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * HeyJude70, I don't recall whether it was mentioned, but the peer review process is the way to get feedback on an article that you're looking to improve so it's ready for GAN. As for this review, I've made three replies in the "Lead" section that mention further edits that I believe are still needed, so we're not quite there yet. Regarding cover versions, it's not always clear whether a paragraph or a list is the best way to go; in part it has to do with how many entries there are and how much detail is appropriate for each. I'd imagine in a few cases a combination of both might be best. The only real requirement is that each cover listed needs to be sourced inline. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could help me in the lead when it comes to summarizing the reception? I'm having great difficulty. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Carbrera, I'll see what I can do to help. I probably won't be able to get to it for at least 24 hours; I'm sorry to have to ask you to wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to ping you again, but I took another look to see how I could formulate a concise sentence or two and I'm still finding difficulty. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC).
 * No, the apology is mine, Carbrera. I've been having trouble getting back to this to figure out what best to do there. I'm hoping to carve out the necessary time no later than this weekend. Thank you for your patience; I appreciate it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Carbrera, I've finally finished my edits; again, apologies for it taking so long. I reorganized the Wonder reception section a bit, since the weight of the reviews—I added one from radio.com, because the balance seemed to demand it and as a CBS-based website, it seemed to be a reliable source—seemed a bit off, especially starting with the only negative opinion. I hope you think this works, along with the revisions of the lead paragraphs. There was one source that I had to update, since the link didn't go to the page with the Holden review. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe BlueMoonset finished up with the last of the concerns. Thank you both, Carbrera (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
 * In my opinion, you've gone above and beyond in your efforts to make this a Good Article. I've read over the review, and I believe you've satisfied all criteria set. I just was to double check with that they agree. Thank you for your patience. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HeyJude70, my concerns have all been addressed, and since Carbrera seems fine with my most recent edits, I don't know of anything to keep you from listing the article as a GA. Thanks for the ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)