Talk:The Climb (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJMitchell    You rang?   19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) OK, it's my understanding that we are awaiting some final touches. Once those are complete, we'll kick this off. HJMitchell   You rang?   19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

'''All the issues raised below have now been addressed. Congratulations, The Climb (song) has passed this Good Article Nomination. I encourage you to take it further, with a view towards FA in the not too distant future. HJMitchell   You rang?   05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)'''

General comments
The article is coherently written and in good English. It is broad in its coverage- incorporating as much material as possible on its subject and is stable and neutral in tone. All media included in the article are tagged with the relevant template and contain detailed fair use rationales where necessary. I have a small number of minor points to make below. Once those, and the section analysis are addressed, I see no reason why The Climb (song) should not make the grade as a Good Article. HJMitchell   You rang?   08:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

minor points

 * I've yet to check the references but I don't foresee anything unpleasant.
 * General issues with grammar and consistency raised below
 * A little more context is needed for things like TV shows etc that are mentioned but that shouldn't require more than a few words
 * I wonder, on a purely aesthetic point, whether it might be worth distributing the image placement more evenly between right and left?
 * I also wonder if the critical reception section might be better placed further down in the article?

Section by section analysis
OK then, let's get this party started. I'll do it by section for clarity. HJMitchell   You rang?   04:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Background and release
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed. Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * the article states that The Climb (song) was not intended for the Hannah Montana film- what was it for? If it was just for general release (and you can cite it) write that otherwise it's ambiguous. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I changed "intended" to "written" and that way the next couple of sentences explain how and why it was written. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * it states the song was offered to other artists- do we know who, when? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * It doesn't say which artists, but they were country artists. Does that suffice? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll have to. I don't think it's incredibly important. HJMitchell    You rang?   03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * when did Peter Chelsom pick it up? The section's not entirely clear on dates- clarification would certainly help there. HJMitchell    You rang?


 * I left a fact tag on the last paragraph of the section- the ref at the end of the next sentence is probably sufficient if it verifies it, but it can't hurt to be "over-cited". HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Added source. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's it for the section, but I'll update later if needs be. HJMitchell   You rang?   04:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the same paragraph it uses the term "the single"- I assume this refers to The Climb but the same paragraph mention the Taylor Swift duet so "the single" should be named. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Addressed this. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Composition
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed Liquidluck (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says "just before the end of the third minute..."- can we be a little more precise? For example, 3:40 or 3:50 or whenever it occurs. Accurate to within 10 seconds should be sufficient. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * . Thanks for catching that, it was inaccurately worded. I believe 2:45 is what the LA Times reviewer was referring to. Liquidluck (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work. HJMitchell    You rang?


 * Just for context to a reader who lives in a cave (but miraculously has access to Wikipedia!) and hasn't heard the song, how long is it? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * lol =]. The length is in the infobox and track listings at the bottom of the article. Do you think it should be added to the prose as well? Liquidluck (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In a word? Yes. If it's in the infobox, it should be dealt with in the prose as well. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Liquidluck (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's not too relevant to this section but are there different versions- radio edits etc? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * The different versions are located in the track listings section. Liquidluck (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I though it would be something like that! I've not got that far just yet. HJMitchell    You rang?


 * Grammar (and I'm a stickler for little things like this!) should be consistent. For example, before I corrected it, it said "...of something.com..." shortly followed by "...but the LA Times'..."- phrase it one way or t'other- it doesn't matter which as long it's consistent.
 * Thank you for noticing that. Personally, I wasn't too sure if that mattered, but I looked at Featured Articles like 4 Minutes (Madonna song) and there is consistency. I switched it all to person of place. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops.. silly me. I did it for critical reception. For here, I'm not sure you can have both this and your statement below. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay, Ipod, I already did this comment and the next =]. Liquidluck (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of name dropping- McAlpine, for example. Who are they? What qualifies them to comment on the matter? For example, are they music editor or some such position for their publications? After all, if I had an opinion piece, I could write about it and i know nothing about music! A very brief explanation of who they are would be in order. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Generally, it is assumed that the publication, if the publication is reliable and notable, gives the reviewer it publishes authority. I did change it to put the word "reviewer" before each between name of the publication and the reviewer, I.E. the "New York Times reviewer Jon Caraminica", in order to make the authority a bit more clear and to make the formatting consistent (your previous comment). Let us know if this is alright. Liquidluck (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did consider that and I won't hold the GA nom back over it, but I think it's worth making it clear you're not on about the foreign affairs correspondent (who is obviously not qualified to talk on such matters). HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I've added their titles; they're both officially blog writers. If the word "blog" turns you off, both are the official review blogs for the BBC and LA Times, and Todd Martens of the LA Times has also worked for numerous other publications. Liquidluck (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the word blog, it's not really needed. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

and on to the next section! HJMitchell   You rang?   05:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reviewing this! I've been collaborating with Ipodnano05 on this article, so I'll try to address as many of your comments as possible. Liquidluck (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So I gathered. It's no problem, I'm a bot of a closet Miley fan anyway! I'll keep on it, hopefully I should have got all the way through before too long. HJMitchell    You rang?   06:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception
✅ all comments addressed as of Nov. 23 Liquidluck (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a issues with this section, however, nothing that can't be fixed if someone's willing to spend 20 minutes on it.
 * The very first sentence ends in "generally positive"- unless this a is a direct quote (in which case it should be in "quote marks"), it's a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. I'd recommend a kind of "mini lead" of a sentence (two at most)to introduce the section- something like "The climb recieved several positive reviews, however, x y and z were more critical..." to show both sides of the coin. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * , sort of. There are only two lukewarm reviews, but I added one of them to the first sentence. Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a reference to American Idol that seems very out of place- what's the context in which the guy says "it's all to American Idol..."? What's American idol about it. Assume your reader (like me, though out of principle!) has never watched American Idol and just contextualise it a little. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Removed. Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "...Appreciated" should, ideally, be refactored to be less subjective unless, of course, he used that word, in which case, "quote mark" it. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Liquidluck (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There were a few typos (I think I caught them all) but just be careful! On a similar note, BBC is The British Broadcating Corporation- it's "the" BBC, not just "BBC". HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Thanks! Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with the grammar, if you refer to X of the LA Times, don't then refer to The BBC's Y. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * . We originally went with sentence variety while writing this section, but I agree that consistency is important. Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote from James Reed doesn't seem to quite make sense, though that could just be me. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I think it fits, although I wasn't sure about Caraminica's. In Reed's reiew, he was discussing two songs at once, which may be why it seems off- but I think the grammar's alright. Liquidluck (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * punctuation- try to the song title in "The Climb", rather than using 'The Climb' in quotations- if possible, put the quotes in apostrophes where you need to. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * the last paragraph is difficult to read. It's composed of 3 or 4 very short sentences that seem to end quite abruptly- can we make it 2 or three longer sentences so it flows easier? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Made it one sentence and combined it with the previous paragraph. Liquidluck (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And so it continues! HJMitchell   You rang?   06:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart performance
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed


 * I have issues with the grammar, particularly the flow of sentences in this section- I've since corrected it but the sentence concerning Miley's simultaneous charting with daddy was barely readable. There are a few more places where it doesn't quite flow or where sentences end abruptly- try and utilise commas, semicolons, devices like "however" and subordinate clauses rather than several very short sentences! HJMitchell    You rang?
 * , I believe. I copy-edited the section just now, and I believe you did as well. Liquidluck (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The mention of the legend that is Johnny Cash peaks my curiosity- which song was it? Considering it's only a few words and another song is named later in the same paragraph, it can't hurt to name it. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Ipodnano05 took care of this section, so I'll mostly stay out of it as I don't know the references as she does. I did fix the citation for this fact (some sort of problem with the archive url). The Cash family songs were Rosanne's "One Step Over the Line", a duet with the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, and Johnny's "Silver Stallion". I'm not sure how to add this to the article, though. Liquidluck (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Added "Silver Stallion" and "One Step over the Line" to the statement. I don't know if its well done though, I'm not too good with wording. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot is made of the country-genre chart but a lot less of the "main" chart (I know nothing about these things). It should be clear how the song fared overall in particular countries, especially the UK and US. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Well, not the UK so much. It should on the U.S. because that is its home country and the main chart is addressed thoroughly. There is just some more info for country because it broke a record. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentences around 7 things and How Do I Live are very difficult to read. For example, was 7 Things one of Miley's? The sentence doesn't make it clear. The brackets around the date for How Do I Live should be in prose, to be consistent with the rest of the article. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Fixed. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph needs a rework. Again, it's a series of very short sentences that would be better of in continuous prose. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Explain please. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the last paragraph of the section, particularly the last 2/3 sentences don't flow into each other very well- they're very short sentences. It would be a lot more readable if it could be one or two sentences. Any help? HJMitchell    You rang?   09:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the same paragraph, the phrase "throughout the rest of Europe" should be refactored. Perhaps include details of chart success in a few other countries. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Added that it became a top thirty in several countries. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Music video
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed. Liquidluck (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it really relevant that he's a veteran? Could this not be put somewhere other than the opening sentence to the section?  HJMitchell    You rang?
 * removed. Liquidluck (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a big chunk of text with precious few footnotes. Is there a reliable source that documents the video? Is there a ref for the CGI- it's not clearly cited. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I added more citations, but they're still scarce. I haven't been able to find any more sources; most just offer a link to the video so readers can watch it themselves. I could add citations to the actual video, but that seems useless, like citing a movie in its plot section. Liquidluck (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The same grammatical points I've raised above. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I think I got everything. Liquidluck (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of, possibly undue, weight is placed on Miley's clothes in the video- are they really worthy of that much analysis? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I edited it down to the basics- what she takes off in the video, and the tops she wears in each scene in order to help differentiate them. Liquidluck (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, there are inconsistencies between "W's X" and "Y of Z". HJMitchell    You rang?   07:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Liquidluck (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Live performances
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed
 * What is the "we are the future" event? I gathered (though it should have been contextualised further up) that it's to celebrate Obama's inauguration (which I linked in, btw) but was it an official event? Where was it? Who organised it? just a little context for non American readers would be good. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Took care of. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, what is the "twentieth annual A Time for Heroes Celebrity Carnival"? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Added. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence around "Jay Leno" seems quite abrupt- could it be added on to the prior sentence or something? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * I was trying to add it but it didnt make sense because the sentence before it is about how she looked in the American Idol performance and the suceeding sentence talks about the ACMA. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This one? I'll have a look for you. HJMitchell    You rang?   02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, there is a lot of emphasis being put on her clothes- are they really that important? HJMitchell    You rang?
 * To have a general image of what she looked like is important. Plus, Cyrus is a fashion icon. She was recently named Seventeen ' "Style Star of the Year" and she has a joint clothing line with Max Azria, exclusively to Wal-Mart. Plus, Featured Articles like 4 Minutes (Madonna song) also have much emphasis, possibly even more. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've never hear miley Cyrus compared to Madonna before!! But hey, it works. It's not massive coverage and it's not being used as "padding" so I don't foresee a problem. HJMitchell    You rang?   09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Miley's a fashion icon, but the live performances section is used to describe the performances themselves (the song itself doesn't change =]), and what the singer wears is important to the presentation. Liquidluck (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, I may be reading it wrong, but the first paragraph says her most recent performance was Sept 11, but the next paragraph is discussing her Sept 18 performance- did I miss something? HJMitchell    You rang?   08:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover versions
✅ all comments as of Nov. 23 addressed


 * Grammar- the first line says "on March 2009"- it needs either a date or "on" should be "in" HJMitchell    You rang?
 * Switched to "in". -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The info about the other, specific cover versions needs a ref- it's relatively uncontroversial so it doesn't need an iron clad source, but it meeds A source. HJMitchell    You rang?
 * There are no sources on two of them because since they are Internet personalities, their is not much coverage on them. The only source that exists is the actual Youtube video and Youtube is discouraged by WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNO. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed both. Liquidluck (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to conclude my section by section review. I have a few more things I want to check before I make general comments and come to a conclusion but i don't forsee any nasty surprises. HJMitchell   You rang?   08:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)