Talk:In the Darkest of Nights, Let the Birds Sing/GA1

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

Nominator: 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: 03:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey! It's me again. I'm excited to be working with you again – this time as a part of the GA Review Circles! I'll get started on the process soon. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm doing a check for inline citations, and the article looks excellent so far! Also, there is clearly no edit warring so I'll check that off. I did a copy vio check and there are no copyright violations detected- so I'll check that off too. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've taken so long to keep you updated. I have been busy. I'll try to review this ASAP. I must say, it is well-written. The tone is neutral, the sections are adequate length and keep on-topic. It's overall an interesting read! I don't think I knew anything about FtP except for "Pumped Up Kicks", so it's cool to hear about their writing process and inspiration. Anyways, time to do that source spot-check I said I'd do. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Improvements

 * Album cover rationale: The non-free use rationale for the album cover could be improved. I'll go ahead and do it to show you an example. Next time use Non-free use rationale album cover The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - notice how little you need to type in this template! The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 14:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Reception template I'm checking through the reviews, and it looks like only one ( The Daily Californian) provides a score (2/5). You should put this in a music ratings template. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sourcing: sources from the band are ok, per WP:SELFSOURCE, (see also WP:PRIMARY), so long as the article is not mostly based on these sources. 8/30 references are from insta/facebook/reddit, which is hardly "mostly", but you still need to be careful. On top of that, there are 2 YouTube videos cited. Not that this is a problem, I just need to double check on what the other sources say and if they are reliable too. The Sharpest Lives (the deadliest to lead) 23:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SupremeLordBagel Apologies for the wait, I have been very busy and I hope this is of no inconvenience to you. I would like to say: the article looks excelent to me, but I am unsure whether it qualifies as a good article per the criteria. I am going to request a second opinion for feedback. Again, apologies for the wait and we'll see where this goes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Second opinion from IanTEB
(this is my first time delivering a second opinion so I apologize if anything is weird). Since the original reviewer hasn't given a specific issue to check for, I'll look over the article and give any comments I have.

Background and development
 * I would try to paraphrase more in the first paragraph; I can give specific pointers if you would like
 * ✅. If there's anything in that paragraph I could improve upon, please let me know!  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 20:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "Of the split, Foster said" - I would change Foster to "frontman Mark Foster" ✅
 * I think the second paragraph is very good!

Release and promotion
 * These sections should be placed after composition ✅
 * I would specify the exact release date within "The EP was released the following month" ✅
 * I would also specify that the Wiltern Theatre shows were in December ✅

Composition and songs
 * Link Julia Garner ✅
 * "when Isom Innis" - "when keyboardist Isom Innis" ✅
 * Link trip-hop ✅

Critical reception
 * The Daily Californian	should be italicized in the Music ratings template ✅

Lead and infobox
 * The release sentence should be moved to right after the first sentence. ✅
 * Assuming that at least a few sources in the body use the abbreviation, citations aren't required for In the Darkest of Nights. If no secondary source uses it, I would remove it ✅
 * This lead should be expanded; there's no content about the title/artwork or critical reception, despite both having sections in the body
 * The lead says that multiple songs revolve around Foster and his wife, but the body only mentions one such track ✅
 * "It produced three singles" is maybe a bit inaccurate since they were are released before the EP. Maybe "it was promoted with three singles" is better? ✅
 * Mark Pontius should be mentioned in the body ✅

This is a very surface-level opinion, but if all is fixed I think the reviewer should be able to make a decision on the article. I would like to ask, though, was a spotcheck performed? If not, I would advise doing so; just checking around three sources per section is usually enough for GA. IanTEB (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello IanTEB and SupremeLordBagel - I was initially going to post here to take on the source review, but at a cursory glance I see a problem with the sourcing in that many of them are sourced from social media pages. While this is technically in line with WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I do question whether or not having 20% of the sources be from Instagram or Twitter is acceptable. I would advise that Bagel search for some sort of secondary source for a few of these if they are able to find any. Additionally, BroadwayWorld is considered generally unreliable per WP:RS/P; I understand that this is not used for an exceptional claim, though I would be cautious with using this source in the future. I'd also be cautious about using school newspapers for reviews/some claims - the article uses the Palatinate, and while I can't imagine that a quoted opinion could be seen as contentious, I would personally stay away from such publications in these cases, as nearly any student, regardless of experience, can join them, and they generally lack the sophisticated editorial oversight than established organizations have (this is just from personal experience - I know my university had students as editors. There has not been much visible discussion on using school newspapers as sources on WP, though this discussion includes the comment "School newspapers are reliable sources for facts, but not for notability").
 * A spot check on [2], [6], [7], [10], [15], [23], [24], and [28] comes up fine. Not sure of the credibility of Music Talkers, though - it seems that it's just the pet project of some guy, and its staff list notably has no editors listed, just "news writers" who have seemingly only written for that website aside from one writer who's written for Earmilk. joeyquism (talk ) 23:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * IanTEB and joeyquism, thank you for your very helpful feedback. I've tried to improve the article per your suggestions and hope my efforts are satisfactory.


 * As for the use of school newspapers, I thought that the use of Palatinate and The Daily Californian was acceptable, as both publications have received commendations for their journalism and seem to be generally reliable (plus the claims weren't contentious). I do agree with you, though, that it is generally good to find more established sources. I've tried my best to replace some of the social media refs.  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 11:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)