Talk:Better Get to Livin'/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Most of this should be easy fixes; covering the missing 'major aspects' will be difficult...so I'll give you as much time as you need so long as progress is being made. —Zeagler (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Dolly Parton On-Line is not a reliable source. However, the interview from which you quote was originally published as a press release and can be found here.
 * Fixed. Kaldari (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless The 9513 and Monsters and Critics have received some independent coverage, they are not reliable sources.
 * I have mixed feelings about The 9513. It is technically a commercial "blog", but it is also one of the most professional and respected country music review sites on the internet (with a paid staff of reviewers). 15 years ago it would have been a print magazine instead of a website, but it still calls itself a blog, so does it qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia standards? Hard to say. I would consider it borderline. Monsters and Critics is a similar situation. It calls itself a "blog", but it's actually a huge commercial website with more than a dozen paid writers. When does a website cross over from being a "blog" to a "news website"? Maybe I should bring this issue up at WP:RS.
 * After reading through WP:SPS and WP:RS, I feel like there's a decent case for including the two sources in the article. The Wikipedia guidelines advise not using self-published blogs, or sources not written by experts in the field. The 9513 writers are definitely experts in the field of country music, and Monsters and Critics are arguably experts in the field of music reviewing. Both are well established commercial websites with professional writers, so I don't think they would be considered self-published blogs by most standards. What are your thoughts on this?
 * I can probably go with that. You can point me to some site/publication that calls them experts?  Or show me where the critics in questions have previously written for a reliable source? —Zeagler (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that The 9513's Jim Malec has contributed to American Songwriter, a very long established songwriting magazine, but his website has been suspended. There hasn't been any dispute previously about The 9513's reliablity, and I know that its pages show up in Google News searches, so it must be reliable if Google News thinks it is. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above, I've left Jim Malec's review and axed Monsters and Critics (especially since they seem to have just been parroting the press release). Kaldari (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I know very little about the song/recording itself after reading this article, except for its lyrical bent. Details from the recording session would be helpful.  (Surely something of use can be found in the one hundred or so search results for "Better Get to Livin'" on Factiva.  Your local library probably has access if you don't.)  And if no description of the song can be found from someone directly involved in its creation, some descriptions from critics would be fine.
 * I only get 20 matches on Factiva: 8 publications and 12 websites. I would be very surprised if there were in fact "hundreds".
 * I got 125 on Factiva. Maybe we don't have the same level of access? —Zeagler (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * "only received moderate airplay" – 'only' and 'moderate' are POV
 * Axed that part. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Despite the song's mediocre chart performance..." – 'mediocre'
 * I'm trying to convey the idea that the song didn't perform as well on the charts as was expected (or hoped perhaps). There are a couple sources for this, but none that really state it explicitly enough to quote, for example, the cited source states that the song "sputtered at No. 48." How about "Despite what some considered to be mediocre chart performance..."? Or should I just drop the clause completely?
 * If Parton or someone involved in the recording said it, include the quote. If a reviewer said it, nobody cares. —Zeagler (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Axed it. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in the above sentence, 'despite' implies a correlation between chart performance and critical reception.
 * Isn't there usually a correlation (although sometimes a weak one) between chart performance and critical reception?
 * No. And it shouldn't be difficult to reword.
 * Removed the clause. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a stretch to say Steven Lippman called the video extremely popular. Just use the direct quote: "which is huge for a record that's not even out yet".
 * How about just "popular"?
 * It's best to use the direct quote – or just drop the "was popular" part. The reader can decide for himself whether 170,000 views is a lot. —Zeagler (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm actually on vacation right now, but I should be able to respond to the rest of these after new years. Sorry for the delay. Kaldari (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen any progress towards meeting criterion 3, so I'm going to have to fail for now. —Zeagler (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Zeagler, sorry for the delay. I've scoured every source I can get my hands on and I have not been able to find any reliably-sourced information on the recording of the song or the music content of the song. I managed to piece together the personnel info, but see my comments on that below. I did manage to find one tidbit about 2 of the back-up singers which I've added to the article. I also added a new section on Notable performances since that was the only other thing I was able to find new information on. I've totally exhausted my resources. I really don't think there are any reliably-sourced facts about this song that are not in the article at this point. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to change my opinion, but if you renominate it might get picked up by a more sympathetic reviewer.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 03:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)