Talk:Still Into You/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a few issues with prose, a couple of quoting fixes to be made, and towards the end the prose is a little shaky. Fair Use Rationale on the image is fine. Referencing needs improvement. GA status is feasible once these issues are addressed. Details below.
 * "critical acclaim from music critics" seems to be some redundancy here
 * Fixed


 * "who have praised the song […] as well as praising it"
 * Fixed the redundancy


 * "long time relationship"
 * I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to tell what to fix here, but I removed the phrase "long time"


 * "In an interview with Spin, Williams was asked if "Still Into You" was going to be a love song" The question appears to be whether it will be the next single, and the current wording is not accurate
 * I wonder why I didn't catch this one before. I just removed the question altogether.


 * "It lacks a heavy guitar riff, which Paramore is typically known for, which is replaced" repeated "which...which"
 * Fixed


 * "with Gotye-like skeletal guitar lines, indie-dance glockenspiel and synths." this is verbatim from source except with one word removed so it needs attribution or putting into your own words.
 * It's no longer verbatim.


 * "The song has been critically acclaimed by music critics" similar issue to that in the lead
 * Fixed


 * "Scott Heisel of Alternative Press calls it" inconsistent verb tense with the rest of the section
 * Fixed


 * ""There's no question that this is still Paramore, only it's better." per MOS:ITAL, "Use italics within quotations if they are already in the source material"
 * Fixed


 * "gave the song a 5/5"
 * What exactly needs fixing here? In any case, I changed "5/5" to "5 out of 5".


 * "wanted to capture what love feels like" again with the italics
 * Fixed


 * "with many white dressed ballerinas"
 * What needs fixing?
 * are they white ballerinas in a state of dress or ballerinas dressed in white?
 * Ballerinas dressed in white. I've fixed the wording there.


 * "Back to shots from the beginning"
 * What needs fixing?
 * The meaning is not clear.
 * Removed that part.


 * "In the last part of the bridge of the song"
 * What needs fixing?
 * the bridge is defined by The Penguin Dictionary of Music (6ed., 1996) as "a section serving to link together two passages more important than itself", but doesn't the bridge occur more than once? It is not clear. Perhaps bridge is the wrong term within the article.
 * Removed that part.


 * "panning into the sky" - to the sky?
 * Fixed


 * "The song has sold over 1,000,000 copies in the US as of December 2013.[17]" seems to be out of date
 * I can't seem to find any other sources to update this.


 * "It is one of their most commercially successful singles to date in the United States" potentially dated language - prefer "became"
 * Fixed


 * "It also charted in seven more countries" not really acceptable as a full sentence, but in addition the table below seems to contradict this claim
 * Removed


 * "It was also included in Billboard's year-end charts, at number 100 on the Hot 100 songs of the year." also
 * Removed


 * "Despite being an alternative rock band, this was the band's first pop single to not enter the Billboard Alternative Songs chart since "The Only Exception" still making "Misery Business" their highest-charting pop single to date while charting high on the Alternative Songs chart." not clear
 * I just removed that part altogether. It's not that necessary to note anyway.


 * Some references lack dates, i.e. fn6-12, fn14, fn19-29, fn31-37, fn40-43
 * Fixed some of these. Reference 14 has no date in it. It just says "24 months ago". Also, for some reason, dates aren't displayed for references 19-29, 31-27 and 40-43, even when I try entering them. It must be because of how the references appear in the tables. Those references don't list actual dates anyway.


 * Some references lack access dates, i.e. fn19-27, fn29, fn31-35, fn37
 * Fixed all of these. With some of them, I just had to list the current date.


 * Some references are reported as unavailable, i.e. fn19, fn21, fn27
 * I fixed reference 27. The other two work fine for me.
 * Fn29 is not working now - "We are sorry but the page you are looking for no longer exists." Where no date is specified elsewhere, "n.d." may be used, but this is not a requirement of the GA criteria. C679 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the non-functional links within the article, as the numbers reported by the checklinks tool seemed to differ from the article itself. C679 14:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both dead links have now been fixed with the web archive. So, is this everything now? Kokoro20 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

C679 07:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kokoro20 (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Most issues now ok. Further issues follow:
 * Link to Australia end of year chart is displaying 2014 but should be 2013, for verification.
 * You mean under the access date? Fixed that.
 * No. this link which is currently used, doesn't show the 2013 chart. You shouldn't pre-date the accessdate, especially to a date when the chart didn't exist. You can use today's date. Please find a working link.
 * Oh, I see. I've fixed it now.


 * What makes "http://www.ukchartsplus.co.uk" a reliable source? suggests that it is not affiliated with the UK Charts Company.
 * I just went ahead to removed it. I tried checking here, but it only lists the top 100, while this apparently charted at 101 in the year end chart.


 * The citation for year-end "US Billboard Pop Songs" does not verify the claim
 * Actually, I just checked the link, and it's listed at 100, just as claimed here.


 * The "1,400,000[17]" figure doesn't seem to check out. Fn17 only mentions that it "tops the 1 million mark".
 * Fixed


 * Fn41 (verifying Australia certifications) needs a better link, seems to currently be a dynamic one linked to this week's chart only.
 * You mean reference 40. It's been fixed.
 * Again, you shouldn't pre-date the accessdate, especially to a date when the chart didn't exist. You can use today's date.
 * Fixed

C679 20:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kokoro20 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

C679 13:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kokoro20 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All taken care of, thanks for the hard work! C679  14:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)