Talk:Love Me Like You/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review, both to help out my fellow Wiki Cup participants and to earn points for the GA cup as well.

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * The tool calls out a few things but they are quoted in the article or track/album names etc. I have not found any issues. ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * Checks out ✅


 * External links
 * Internal server error on the following links
 * 28
 * 29

Showing up fine for me. There are instructions in the ref as to how to access the specific chart. — Calvin999 08:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well Written

 * "Singles Chart, and has" - does not need the comma
 * "Little Mix have performed", should be "has" as the band is singular
 * For a solo singer I would have used 'has', but not for a group. — Calvin999  08:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "band members eyeline" is that "eyeliner" or "eye line"?
 * "an instrumental of "Love Me" should that be "instrumental version"?
 * "respectively..[" has a doube period.
 * "The video takes place at a school dance, where professor in the hall, the same man who appeared in their previous single's video "Black Magic", which was shot in conjunction with this one in a one-week period in April 2015, tells every one that it is the last dance.". the interjection seems pointless and makes the sentence very hard to read.
 * "where professor" should be "where a professor"
 * "are waiting for their date arrive" should "for their dates to arrive", they are expecting several dates right? and "to arrive"
 * "each of them to go after" reword to each of them to go to the dance after"
 * "He mets Leigh-Anne" should be "meets"
 * "to her, and again asks" the phrase would indicate that he asked Leigh-Anne before.
 * " He helps her up, and" does not need a comma
 * Typo - "twelth" should be "twelfth"
 * "Little Mix" sung" not sure why there is a " there, and should be "sang" not sung
 * Done all — Calvin999  08:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources/verifiable

 * The referencecs seem to be a mix of actual referencecs and footnotes - like #4 and #6. I would like to see a seperate footnote section instead of mixing it in.
 * This doesn't need to be done. I've never done it nor been told to before. — Calvin999  08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reference 7 does not have the article date added.
 * Same for #14
 * Ditto 16
 * And 25
 * Added for all. — Calvin999  08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the reliable source status of the following websites
 * Digital Spy
 * Idolator
 * Musicnotes.com
 * Press Play Ok
 * chart-track.co.uk
 * ultratop.be
 * ifpicr.cz
 * lescharts.com
 * Australian-charts.com
 * Hollywoodlife.com


 * Seriously?? — Calvin999  08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to take that comment? so anyway, criteria 2b, all sources.must be reliable sources according to the GA criteria. I asked because i don't know if the music project find these sources to.be WP:Reliable Sources, each topic have differnet sources they may or may not consider reliable. If you do not know I will research them, but i figure you probaly knew the answer to 75% or more?  MPJ  -US 22:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you ever reviewed a music article before? Of course these are reliable. You'll find these in pretty much any music related article. I'm just really surprised you are questioning the reliability of these sources when they are used by music topic editors all the time. — Calvin999  09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Being used a lot is not the same as being reliable, If you read WP:Reliable Sources you'll notice that there is no consideration given to "being used a lot". I am really surprised at your attitude over the fact that as part of a review to see if the article is a Good Article I am checking against one of the criteria and ask questions? I am trying to do a proper review here and not just provide a rubber stamp approval and all I get is attitude and a rather condesending attitude??  MPJ  -US 11:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But they are reliable, that is why they are used a lot. These are staple sources in music topics. Asking someone to list why every source is reliable for every review is just a waste of time. I've never had to state why every source is reliable. You'll even find them in Featured Content. If you want to check that they are reliable, then that's your job as the reviewer, not mine as the nominator. I'm equally surprised that you don't know that these are reliable sources. — Calvin999  11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So since the nominator was less than helpful on this I am doing my own research, I am looking at WP:CHARTS and WikiProject Songs to see if the various sources are considered Reliable, either by the songs project or from what I can see for websites not listed anywhere for songs or charts.


 * Digital Spy ✅
 * Idolator - listed as a "blog" on the wikipage, website give the impression of being news, but no mention of an editorial process.
 * Musicnotes.com - Sells sheet music, fairly innocent content
 * Press Play Ok -
 * chart-track.co.uk - ✅ - based on what I read in "about us" and "methodology"
 * ultratop.be ✅
 * ifpicr.cz - "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" in the Check Republic. Looking at the guidelines that is probably acceptable ✅
 * lescharts.com ✅
 * Australian-charts.com ❌ - Not listed for Australia.
 * You do realize that this is just the Australian version of ultratop.be and lescharts.com right? — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  12:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that I am not actually interested in the music articles in general and it's not really on me to prove that your Good Article candidate fullfills the requirements?? How would I possibly know that since it's not listed on the charts overview? MPJ  -US 00:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you'd have clicked on them you'd have seen they are all linked together. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hollywoodlife.com - owned and operated by pmc.com that also runs stuff like Variety Magazine ✅

Broad in coverage

 * As broad as it can get for a song I suppose, not sure what else could be added

Netural

 * It does present at least one view that's not complimentary of the song, although the majority is positive.

Stable

 * There is some back and forth in the past, but nothing that jumps out at me as problematic. ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * The cover is "Non-free" but there are no free options for that, licensing looks correct to me.
 * I am not sure if I think the Ronette and the Supremes pictures are appropriate since the comparison is on singing not visual comparisons. On the fence with those images.
 * You could say that for any comparative image. If a subject is mentioned, then a picture of the subject is allowed. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

General

 * So the Chart (2015) does not sort at all, but the Certifications chart with 1 entry does. Seems like it should be the other way around.
 * That's a pre-coded template, nothing I can do about that. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - That's what I got so far on this, I am putting the article on hold to allow for updates to be made in the next 7 days. Let me know when you are ready to have me follow up on review comments etc.  MPJ  -US 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, GA. For future reference you cannot expect the luxury of a GA reviewer that's intimately familiar with your topic and I think the spirit of cooperation should fill your heart when someone else goes out of their way to voluntarily help you with your article.  MPJ  -US 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't expect that luxury at all and never have. I don't need to be lectured on voluntarily helping people with their reviews, I've done 244 myself. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  09:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)