Talk:Tornerò (Mihai Trăistariu song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coolmarc (talk · contribs) 16:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Before I start on the six criteria for this review, I suggest you significantly trim the lead. As per MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article with fewer than 15,000 characters of readable prose should have a lead of only one or two paragraphs. In this case, the lead is nearly as big as the body! 8113 B (1287 words) "readable prose size" so only one lead paragraph should do.  Cool Marc  17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for taking your time for this review. I have trimmed the lead to two short paragraphs; one would be too short for all the information that needs to be covered. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort it looks much better now. Please see my comments below.  Cool Marc  21:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Is there a reason why that cover art is used and not the ones that appear on Amazon and AllMusic? The caption for the cover art should indicate which single type that cover art was used for, ie. Something simple like Cover art for maxi-single/Romanian CD single. Whatever the main cover art is...
 * There is no specific reason why this cover artwork is used, rather than because it happened to be the first I saw. I added the caption as suggested.
 * Can you confirm that this is the main cover art? I found it odd that the ones I found on Amazon and AllMusic use the other cover art instead.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, that is not the Scandinavian CD single cover art, but the Romania and Greece one  Cool Marc  09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I adjusted that. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The liner notes indicate that the song was recorded in January 2006 at Art Music Studio, Bucharest, Romania
 * I assume you can obtain that from the Amazon link, right? I think that's just the studio where the producer arranged the song (Produced by... at...). Adding this specific infor would be rather irrelevant to the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If that was not where and when the song was recorded, then it should not be included.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The album liner clarify that this is where it was recorded so it can be included.  Cool Marc  09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I included that specific information. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Mihai's first name is missing in the songwriter parameter
 * The name is not missing, it's rather leaving it out after the first mention to avoid repetition. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While I understand this as a policy for album track listings or article bodies (WP:LASTNAME), it is not the same for an infobox which is supposed to allow readers to identify key facts at a glance. I fixed this anyway.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * English_title and language fields would be helpful
 * I agree with you, but sadly they don't seem to be working on this infobox. Maybe you could help me out?
 * You are using the depreciated Infobox single template, not the new Template:Infobox song. I added it now and trimmed the repetition of details in the Eurovision infobox.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * CD can link to CD single and digital download to Music download. My formatting took this out by accident I think, sorry!


 * Mihai is overlinked in the Eurovision infobox. The languages should be in first infobox instead.
 * Done the first part, but see my comment above regarding the languages field.

Lead
I have a couple of issues here and will copyedit this myself once these are addressed.
 * Is there really any need for the "also known as Tornero"? Surely it is because people are to lazy to type the ò, unless the singer himself has said it is also known as such?
 * Readers may wonder why the song's title appears as "Tornero" on nearly all releases (including the two provided by you), plus the song is referred to by nearly every publication (e.g. in retrospective comments) as "Tornero".
 * It means the same thing. Beyoncé is spelled Beyonce all the time but that does not make it her alternative name.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed that info. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Do we know if it was the first or second single from the album?
 * There is lacking information about the fellow singles from the album
 * According to his discography "îti Dau" and "All the Time" from the album were released before it which would make "Tornerò" the 3rd single?  Cool Marc  09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would just leave it like it stands now, as we're just assuming without real confirmations or sources. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strophes are used for poems, not songs. I think you mean verses.


 * "hitting high notes", "using his higher vocal range" reads better


 * Are there any sources that indicate gave positive reviews of the song, praising its catchiness and the singer's vocal delivery. Or is this WP:SYNTH?
 * This is strictly a summary of all the cited content in the "Critical reception and recognition" section. Wikipedia allows editors to create such 'overall' sentences, otherwise the lead would be full of refs, which in turn is not reccommended by Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia allows you to paraphrase, not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Unless this is stated by a source in the body, it has to go.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this kind of summary is a thing I've seen on almost every GA and FA (and used it in plenty of my other GAs), I shortened it to "...gave positive reviews of the song." only. I hope this looks betters now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a summary and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not excuse WP:OR. I've removed it. If you have a source that says it received positive reviews - feel free to add it.  Cool Marc  18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Before we continue with this review, we need to clarify some things; I'm strongly opposing to your suggestions over the lead. I have already trimmed it down very much, but it now gets shorter and shorter without encompassing information on the most important topics in the article's body anymore (that's what a lead section should do). You tell me to constantly remove things from the lead because I'm allegedly using original research; well, that is not the case, as I'm summarizing things already reliably cited in the body. I get it you can't "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", but little am I doing that when I'm saying "Music critics gave positive reviews of the song, praising its catchiness and the singer's vocal delivery", for example. This is clearly cited in the article's body and I'm not applying WP:OR, but rather summarizing statements such as "the track is a phenomeon" or "Trăistariu's vocals are soaring", which clearly are positive. This is just an example for various things you have told me to remove (e.g.: release of the music video, promotional endeavours). Also, why sould I find another ref for the worldwide sales claim if already reliably cited in the body? Again, a lead should give infos over the most important things in the article's body, which clearly the lead suggested by you doesn't. I have expanded the lead to an acceptable two paragraphs now (even though I think some important infos are still missing) and I am asking, Ss112 and AJona1992 to help out with clarification. If possible, please take your time to look over the GA review to fully understand the subject matter. Here is the very initial lead, which admittedly was a bit long, but contained all important infos from the article's body. As for Coolmarc, please do not undo my edits until consenus is reached. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be rude, but rather search for clarification in such a situation. Best regards to all, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the lead looks great now, it is supposed to be a concise overview of the article's most important points as per WP:LEAD this is part of the MOS criteria for a GAN. The music video and promotion is clearly not important for the lead if there is no info or coverage of it in the article. I'm shocked that you are not recognizing a statement like "critics gave positive reviews" with no source as WP:SYNTH. As I mentioned above the source given for "1 million units sales claim" states that this is according to the singer himself which is WP:PRIMARY and therefore needs verification (a GA criteria) from the IFPI or another reliable organisation. Especially if it says "units in 2009!? Streaming ratios did not even exist then.  Cool Marc  21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-explaining the point with the sales; I got it now! I have added "according to Trăistariu", but with your statements, I get why it's not the best source anyways. Maybe we can clarify if we should include those claimed sales or not in the article with the two users mentioned above. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at WP:RECEPTION, it is suggested to provide an overview of the subject's critical reception among the provided commentary sources the editor has provided in the following sentences of the section. If the consensus among critics is that of positive praise, then the subject's reception is that it received critical acclaim. Hope this clarifies things for you. Best – jona  ✉ 13:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RECEPTION is an essay, not a guideline. The essay also says Be vigilant to avoid original research in these sentences, such as "Praised by most reviewers". To say that critics "gave positive reviews" for this song with no source to back up this claim is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (WP:SYNTH).  Cool Marc  13:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Commercially, "Tornerò" fared well and was given airplay in multiple countries, selling over one million units worldwide as of July 2009. Chartwise, it reached the top ten in Finland and Greece, and the top 40 in Romania and Sweden according to who did it fare well? I think only its sales from the first sentence are relevant and Greece and Romania are airplay charts and need to be attributed as such.
 * Again, it is allowed to summarize sections like that (in this case "Commercial performance and accolades"), as long as you stay neutral and encyclopedic. I think a vague description of where a song charted is necessary in the lead. Explanation on the charts would be irrelevant in the lead sections, and as they are (or were) the national charts of Greece and Romania, you don't need it.
 * I'm not saying you can't say where it charted, but to say it fared well without a source in the body to back it up is editorial synthesis. I was mistaken regarding Greece. But the Romania chart does not include sales and are based on airplay only. It is misleading to write it otherwise. I would suggest this be written as "Tornerò" peaked at number 38 on the Romanian Top 100, and reached the top 10 in Finland and Greece, and top 40 in Sweden. The source for the sales claim says that the sales are according to the singer himself which per WP:PRIMARY cannot be considered reliable unless verified by a company like the IFPI.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the "fared well" statement and edited the other sentence as you've suggested. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you find a reliable and non-primary source to verify the sales claim?  Cool Marc  18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The last sentence is WP:UNDUE and not relevant based on the info (or lack thereof) on this article.
 * The release of a music video is definitely to mention in the lead, and that is promotion, which in turn gives you the opportunity to give some details on further promotion (concerts, ...)
 * Why? We don't even know where or when this promotion took place or who directed the video. Its undue weight to details with little/no coverage and therefore not relevant for the lead.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I'm not very happy with this, I removed this information. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The writing and production credits appear to be wrong. It was written by Cristian Hriscu, Mihaela Deac, Eduard Cîrcotă and produced by Circota only according to the liner notes and Qobuz.  Cool Marc  09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be legit, so I've adjusted that in the lead, infobox and the article's body. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * According to Mihai's (albeit unsourced) discography on his main article, "Baby" was released before "Tornerò" and not "îti Dau". Can you confirm what is true?  Cool Marc  09:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mihai's article is unsourced and it can't be confirmed whether "Baby" or "Iti dau" was released as a single first. I removed the chronology based on that matter. Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Background and release

 * Prior to being selected to represent his country at Eurovision, Trăistariu participated in the Romanian national selection multiple times This is sentence is out of place here; better suited for the section about the national selection.
 * ✅ Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This section looks a bit bare. Do we know what the lyrics are about? Surely he gave an interview about this song somewhere on the internet? I thought I'd help you and give you a tip: If you search "Proquest welcome" on Google and click the first link you will find 27 sources if you search "Mihai Trăistariu" on Proquest. I saw a couple of sources and reviews (albeit bad ones) on there that could help bulk up the composition and critical reception details. A couple of them actually called it a rave song. When citing the source you just use the "via=ProQuest" parameter.
 * ✅ Sadly, non-American music (especially Romanian in this case) does not get a wide coverage in magazines, websites etc... Thank you very much for introducing Proquest to me; I've added up some infos in the two aforementioned sections, using a total of five new refs. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there again and thanks for your first comments! I have solved what I could solve, but I do not agree with all your points, as you can see in some comments. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded above.  Cool Marc  01:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've implemented nearly all your suggestions and commented on them above. I have also struck the previous comments (I hope that's ok with you...) to make the whole review more comprehensive. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey I've commented above. I think my ProQuest suggestion could add some nice details to the article so if you are willing to use it, I'll check the prose once you are done.  Cool  Marc  18:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there again! I've implemented your ProQuest suggest and, indeed, I was able to expand the section a bit. As for you WP:SYNTH suspicion in the lead, I don't think we're getting another comment/response. However, I think it is clear that this aspect can be seen from different perspectives. Would it be that bad to leave the sentence as it is in the lead? Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can invite and ping many editors to prove my point, but why should I or why would they care when this is basic Wikipedia guidelines. I am not going to beat around the bush here. Even you know very well what you have done is WP:SYNTH with "critics gave positive reviews praised this" and the sales claim is not verified, you cannot use a WP:PRIMARY source for this. Unless you can find a reliable source for these 2 claims or remove, I will fail this, there is no "suspicion" - you are simply refusing to admit that they violate 2 very important and basic Wikipedia guidelines and GA criteria.  Cool  Marc  08:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though I removed the sales claim, I still don't agree on the alleged breach of "basic" Wikipedia guidelines in the lead, and neither will I. Again, I do not interpret anything here, I rather give a summary over the respective section. I tried to be nice and to handle this situation constructively, but you seem to be a very rigid-minded person, not accepting any other opinion than yours. Both I and AJona1992, a very well-experienced user, negated WP:SYNTH, and I'm very sure pinging more users to "prove [your] point" won't help; let me tell you something: you can't prove anything, because your point is simply not correct here. Also, you treat me like this is my first Wikipedia edit and like I do not know about very "basic" guidelines, but let me tell you that I have promoted almost 80 GAs over the years along with some FLs. Kinda strange this alleged evident and severe breach of policies was never mentioned by any of the GA reviewers, right? (Before you tell me again that "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument" let me tell you I'm not alluding to that). As you clarified you're "not going to beat around the bush here", please close this GAN; your bossy attitude is doing nothing for me, just saying. Again, I tried to be nice, as I try to be to every user I'm involved with in different projects, but you've messed up everything. I simply don't care about your modern-time preachers anymore, as Eurovision Song Contest 2018 winner Netta sings in her song. Wish you the best of luck with future GAN reviews; please contact me as soon as you promote an article to GA with a one-line lead... Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As the user does not want to remove WP:SYNTH as per above, the article therefore fails the GA criteria of being verifiable with no original research.  Cool Marc  15:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)