Talk:Sex and Candy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 06:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Per request on my talk page. Give me some time; I will print it out, go over it with a red pen and then let the nominator(s) know what I think. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I worked hard to make sure this page passes all the official GA criteria that every GA nominee must be judged by, so I think this review will go smoothly!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

OK ... I had a bit more issues than usual with the copy edit I always do on any GA nominee I review (first, it can't help but be an improvement regardless of the outcome, and second, I don't think articles should fail that might otherwise have passed because of easily fixable copy issues.

It was a pleasure to review this article, as a lot went right compared to many of the other GANs I have reviewed. It tells me everything I would want to know about a song I sort of remember from that era. All the information in it is cited (with the exception of the video synopsis, and that can be easily done with the link from External Links at the bottom and Cite AV media. And with most of the high-school-paper prose (not bad English, just stiffer than we need to be) smoothed out, I think we're ahead in the count.

I am putting this on hold so a couple of things (none of which I see as terribly problematic) can be resolved:


 * First, I find it astounding that outside of the table of chart positions at the bottom, no mention is made in the article of "Sex and Candy" having made it to No. 1 on the Canadian pop chart, its best chart position in any country. Certainly this should not only be in the text but the intro as well. A number one anywhere we keep tabs on a pop chart is worth mentioning.


 * The picture of the dorm: Is that the dorm Wozniak's girlfriend was living in at the time? Do we know this for a fact? Bryn Mawr has (and has had) quite a few dorms over the years; it seems that as of 1989 there were the same 10 that there are now. If we can't find a reliable source saying she lived in Erdman Hall (the dorm shown), then the picture will have to go. If there is, it should be cited inline. The interview where he describes how the song came to be does not say what dorm it was.


 * The blockquoted excerpt from the interview seems to be what's causing the possible copyvio issue. I left it alone while proofing, but even so just looking at it it looked like it could stand to be trimmed some, possibly with much paraphrasing and any actual quotation used kept inline. MOS:QUOTE gives no hard limits on how long a quote can be, but I think we can agree that nothing is gained by reading a meandering Wozniak say "I don't know!" three times in as many lines. Reducing the amount of quote used there (and maybe a little bit elsewhere) would go a long way towards putting the article on the right side of the copyvio detector.


 * I am also a little unsure about using Cracked.com as a source for what I admit is a salient fact, that many people think it's a Nirvana song (personal theory besides the critical comparisons: it has a similar plodding beat and song structure to "In Bloom"; listen to them back to back and you might see what people think they hear). In general, I have understood, we have not considered that website a reliable source since many of those listicles aren't really subject to editorial oversight or factual verification and the publication's primary goal is to make readers laugh. However, I do note that the link in question includes sources for its claim, in the form of a Google search results screenshot demonstrating that yes, there are apparently enough people who think "Sex and Candy" is by Nirvana beyond the mononymous author's say-so. So, maybe ... I'd like to read what you think.


 * Once again, the graf synopsizing the video needs to be cited.


 * Also, is it really necessary to put the Bruce Pollock citation in a separate Bibliography section and Harvard-ref it when it's just used twice?

And while it's not a dealbreaker for GA, I do wonder who Wozniak sold the song rights to. Has he said anywhere, anytime, since then? It would be nice to know.

I hope these can be addressed soon as I see the potential for some interesting DYK hooks in this article, and I would be delighted to nominate it once it is a GA. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: I don't know how to cite the Canadian website via an inline citation - if you know how to, it would be much appreciated if you could teach me. I removed the pic of the dorm. I shortened the blockquote and removed another quote or two. I think Cracked.com is reliable in this case. I added a citation to the "synopsis" section. I do not know how I can cite the Pollock book any other way. I cannot find info on whom Wozniak sold the song to. Finally, thanks for your help!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * I was confused at first about the Canada chart thing, but then I looked at the source and saw what you meant. On further examination, it's even more problematic. The same source is used to support its place as #1 overall and #1 on the Alternative top 30. Some more research is necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And now I am embarrassed. It was never #1 overall, only #2. Still, this is better than its US peak and should still be noted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the chart issues. Also, I added the song's Canadian peak to the lede and the sources used to cite its peaks on the different Canadian charts are not the same. I think we're done here. Thanks so much!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Unfortunately the plot thickens a little bit. Looking at the Canadian charts from that era, it does not seem to have reached any higher on the overall chart than #16. That, we wouldn't need to mention in the intro, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed mention of the Canadian charts from the lede; what, if anything, should I do now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Oops again! The cited link in the chart now does prove it made #2 ... in late May, actually, after bobbing around in February and March. I think we can add it back in since that's better than its US peak; if you want me to write up a cite for that I'll do it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * just to make sure you see this message, I want to let you know that I fixed the issues.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS