Talk:Trouble (Coldplay song)/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * A bit short, but should also only be one paragraph, per WP:LEAD.
 * I think the two paras are a bit different so I prefer to stay as is. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs to be expanded. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added something. --Efe (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Writing
 * "The mixing, however, was redone because it was sent back that fell shortly of the desired quality." This doesn't make sense.
 * Edited. I dont know it now makes sense. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense at all and I don't know what on earth the sentence is trying to say, so I'm struggling to offer any suggestions.
 * "The mixing, however, was redone because," absolutely fine.
 * "... it was sent back" what was sent back?
 * "... that fell shortly" presumably this should be "fell short" also what does that refer to
 * "... of the desired quality" The desired quality of what? Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done something. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was nearly there. I've reworded it, but can you check it to make sure it is what you meant. Peanut4 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What happened once it was remixed?
 * Not in the source. But it was remixed to meet artistic preferences. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Am, the meaning changed. Tried mine. Please check. --Efe (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. Makes perfect sense now. Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Lyrics
 * "Like the song "Yellow", Martin wrote "Trouble" with the repetitive use of the word trouble." It's not clear whether Yellow had repetitive use of the word yellow or trouble. It suggests the latter at the moment. Which is correct?
 * Hmm, good point. It seems the "Yellow" also uses the word trouble repetitively. Clarified. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A very short section with two very short pars. Can you expand this at all?
 * I decided to merge this part and the preceding section. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Release
 * "American actor Sylvester Stallone was interested to use the song for the soundtrack of his film, but the band declined." Which film?
 * Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "It has reached number 10 on the UK Singles Chart, making it the band's second Top 10 single in the UK after "Yellow"." Should probably be "It reached ..." unless it is still in the charts.
 * "It has reached number 23 on the Billboard Adult Top 40 and 38 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks." Ditto

A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Music videos
 * Does the one reference cover the entire section?
 * It only supports the last two sentence. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The section could do with some improved referencing then. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Which part? That section main talks about the video, and the video itself is the source. The last two sentences (reception) are sourced. --Efe (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never understand the video itself is a source but that's not an argument to be had here. However, could you find sources for:
 * That's the usual argument by a lot of editors. Anyway, I tried to address below comments. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "The original European version of the music video for "Trouble" was directed by British director Sophie Muller."
 * Sourced. --Efe (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "In October 2001, a US version of the music video was created. The video is directed by English film director Tim Pope" Peanut4 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim Pope is supported by the last ref. Date removed. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an outside editor, I've fixed the two "It has" instances in the release section. Regards,  Jamie ☆ S93  02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: A discussion about the grammar is carried here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no responses, so I removed "has", temporarily for this review not to be delayed. Once it gets the consensus, I'll reflect it in the page, either to change or as is. Anymore concerns? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added "has" again. My good and featured articles are using such grammar. --Efe (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's an arugment between how long the present exists for, because I can understand the arguments on both sides. However, it's no biggy so I'll leave it.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)