Talk:I Will Possess Your Heart/GA1

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 09:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm MarioSoulTruthFan and I will be reviewing this article.

Infobox

 * Needs alt ✅
 * Needs border ✅
 * from Album → Album Not done  I'm not sure what you're asking for here
 * Remove the "from". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) ✅ I didn't realize that it was in the markup and not in the visible text.


 * Released → choose only the most recent date ✅
 * Length → Same as previous ❌  The difference in length between the album and radio versions is notable
 * You are right.


 * Should use "flatlist" for the labels. ✅
 * Should use "flatlist" for the writers. ✅
 * I don't see any citation/reference of the genre of this song. ✅

Lead

 * This lead should be more comprehensive of the article, it should be a summary of everything. ✅
 * I Will Possess Your Heart" is a 2008 song by American band Death Cab for Cutie → I Will Possess Your Heart" is a song recorded by American band Death Cab for Cutie. ✅
 * that was the lead single from their sixth studio album, Narrow Stairs. → date of the album release between brackets after the album. Needs re-writing. ✅
 * In 2011 Paste Magazine named the song one of "the 25 creepiest songs about love" → should also be below on the a sub-section under "Reception". ✅

Composition

 * Section should be called "Background" or "writing and composition", something in this vein. ✅
 * You need quote marks "" on the sentence by Ben Gibbar. ❌  Quotation marks are not used with blockquotes.
 * My bad, I didn't noticed it had blockquotes.


 * Harmer himself said of the bass line → remove himself ✅
 * You merged two sections "Composition" and "Background" into one, along with "Release". Is quite messy, needs some serious work here. ✅

Music video

 * This section is just "huge" for this article. Take a look at the others paragraphs, this section is three times bigger the others. Not done  This reflects coverage in the sources.  I don't think this section goes into unnecessary detail.
 * It looks better after division of topics and paragraphs. Well done. ✅ On second thought, some basic facts about the composition were missing, and I think that does count as a "main aspect" of the topic.


 * travels, travels → choose other vocabulary. Trips instead, despite the words are relying upon the mean of transportation, be aware of that while re-writing. Not done  This is a standard use of the word "travels".
 * I just inteded for you to use a wide variety of vocabulary. That is what I meant. Synonyms. ✅


 * After each city you should have the country. → Everyone knows where "London" is, but I'm not so confident regarding "Phnom Penh". ❌  This would needlessly clutter the text.  The map makes their location clear, and none of the article themselves even have the country in the article name.
 * Yes you are right.


 * "The young woman was portrayed by Lindsay Burdge, who would years later become known for lead roles in several independent films such as A Teacher and The Sideways Light". → it didn't influence her choice for this music video since the movies all appeared later in her career. Not so sure why this is relevant for the article. ❌ She's notable mainly for what she did after this video; there's not reason not to include this fact.
 * So after she was featured in this video she was cast to those movies?
 * Correct. Most sources about her are in the context of those later films, and it was difficult finding a source that even linked her to this video.


 * said, say, saying → You know what I mean with this. Not done Past tense is used consistently throughout. The single use of "saying" is a nonfinite verb clause, not present tense.
 * I jsut meat you need to use a wider range of vocabulary. Example replaced it by "confessing", "affirmed", "told"...and so on ✅ Though I like to avoid using too many said-bookisms.


 * Do you need all those cameras specifications? ❌ It was discussed in the source so I decided to include it, but if it really offends you (or the future reviewer) I could remove the exact camera names.
 * It will depend after a more careful read. Since the section suffered several changes.


 * This section should be divided in divided "Background and concept" and "Synopsis". ✅

Reception

 * Once again sections are mixed. → ""I Will Possess Your Heart" reached number six on the US Billboard Modern Rock Tracks, making it one of Death Cab for Cutie's highest charting singles to date." should be in chart performance a section that doesn't even exist here. ✅
 * Those awards and prizes should be in a sub-section called "awards", "recognition" or "accolades". ✅
 * Therefore the last paragraph should be on top here. ✅

Track listing

 * The tracklists here appeared out of nowhere. References? ✅
 * Divide them into two columns. ✅

Charts

 * Should use "singlechart" table. ✅
 * You need references for those peaks on the charts. ✅

Overall GA review

 * This article makes me think that you have no idea the criteria needed to meet GA standards. I strongly advise you to look at others GA and FA articles for such. ✅
 * Missing sections like those I mentioned above along with "Credits and personnel" ✅ and "Release history". ❌ The initial release dates of the single and video are in the article. I don't think a laundry list of release dates in every country is really a "main aspect" of the topic.
 * The band never performed the song live or this song was never covered? ❌  There are no live performances or covers that are have significant discussion in multiple sources.  Given this, I again don't think that laundry lists count as a "main aspect".
 * I have to fail this article, it's not even close to GA material. Please improve the article. ✅


 * I believe the quick fail is inappropriate, as according to WP:WIAGA it is only to be used "solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination... with a 'drive-by' nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review," and "in all other cases, the nominator... is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed." The issues above are in actuality mostly minor textual revisions and requests for references that are quite easy to fix.  I'd also like to point out that, with limited exceptions, MOS compliance is explicitly not part of the GA criteria.  I will be implementing them in preparation for a new GA review. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You still know that I'm not obligated to give you time, regardless. It looks much better now, you can nominate it for a GA review and it will certainly pass. Would you like me to review it again or would you rather wait for another reviewer? (I won't fail it this time around). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being gracious, I appreciate it. I've finished the upgrades from this review.  I'm happy for you to continue reviewing as long as you are mindful of the limits of the GA criteria.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, nominate it again and I will take care of it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I just reviewed the article. I didn't realize that you were planning on reviewing it again. I am truly sorry. Carbrera (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
 * it's ok, your review it's not far from what I would have done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)