Talk:Butterfly Fly Away/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Fixed. Mephiston999 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Fixed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Added in text. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * Emphasis removed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * I have fairly major concerns with both files. The sound file lacks a real rationale- it needs a serious touching up. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful, or I could do it for you if you like. Further, though I have no concerns with the quality/length of the sample (both seem about right) I do question whether this is the best sample- is this the chorus? There's the sound of M singing solo and the two of them duetting, but not BR singing solo? Does he sing solo?
 * He does solo, but there's no way to include parts of both solos and comply with the 10% rule. This sample includes part of one solo, part of the duet, part of the chorus, and lyrics referencing a caterpillar, so it looks like a good portion to use. Thanks for adding the rationale! Liquidluck ✽ talk  19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * I have fairly major concerns with both files. The sound file lacks a real rationale- it needs a serious touching up. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful, or I could do it for you if you like. Further, though I have no concerns with the quality/length of the sample (both seem about right) I do question whether this is the best sample- is this the chorus? There's the sound of M singing solo and the two of them duetting, but not BR singing solo? Does he sing solo?
 * He does solo, but there's no way to include parts of both solos and comply with the 10% rule. This sample includes part of one solo, part of the duet, part of the chorus, and lyrics referencing a caterpillar, so it looks like a good portion to use. Thanks for adding the rationale! Liquidluck ✽ talk  19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fairly major concerns with both files. The sound file lacks a real rationale- it needs a serious touching up. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful, or I could do it for you if you like. Further, though I have no concerns with the quality/length of the sample (both seem about right) I do question whether this is the best sample- is this the chorus? There's the sound of M singing solo and the two of them duetting, but not BR singing solo? Does he sing solo?
 * He does solo, but there's no way to include parts of both solos and comply with the 10% rule. This sample includes part of one solo, part of the duet, part of the chorus, and lyrics referencing a caterpillar, so it looks like a good portion to use. Thanks for adding the rationale! Liquidluck ✽ talk  19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The second image is simply not required- it adds nothing to the article (as what they looked like during that particular performance doesn't matter...) and has a copy-paste rationale that is simply inaccurate. This would be grounds for a speedy fail, but that would be unfair after the amount of time you've waited for a review. If you're looking for another image, a free portrait of M or BR would probably be your best bet.
 * Image removed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

More comments
I'm still not feeling this article is quite there. Here are some more general notes-
 * The "background" section is not really a background section- it just jumps straight into a rather technical discussion of the music. For me, a background section would discuss inspiration, production, writing, that kind of thing first. There is some of that afterwards, but it's still not right. I can't put my finger on it...
 * , I believe. I added more info about filming the scene and switched the paragraphs. Liquidluck ✽ talk  20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cyrus' -> Cyrus's ✅
 * I can't access ref 2- does it contain a discussion of the genre?
 * "The song was included on the short list for Best Original Song at the 82nd Academy Awards.[10]" Who won it, in the end? I'd say this is a major claim of notability, and should be expanded upon if possible.
 * . The winner hasn't been announced yet, but I added that it failed to achieve a nomination. Liquidluck ✽ talk  20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I say, this is by no means a bad article- it just needs a little more pushing. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't help but get the feeling that this still isn't quite there, but I'm not sure what else there is that can be done. It's a very minor topic... I'm happy to promote. I'm not sure what I can say with regards to pushing for FA, if that is planned- the topic seems so minor, it looks like it just couldn't get much further. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)