Template:Did you know nominations/Two Worlds (song)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Two Worlds (song)

 * The article was expanded 5 times.


 * ... that AllMusic thought Phil Collins' "Two Worlds", featured in Disney's 1999 animated feature Tarzan, "eerily echo[ed]" the worldbeats of former Genesis bandmate Peter Gabriel?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Redfield

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article length is okay, article filing date is okay, article length expansion is over 7x and thus okay.  Neutrality is mostly okay (see below).  Cover image use is okay.  Hook length is okay and hook fact is sourced and neutral and reasonably interesting.
 * Great! ✅


 * That said, this article and nomination are not ready for the main page. There are MoS violations.  In the hook above, the song title should be in quotes not italics and the former band name should be in regular font not italics.  These are basic principles of MOS:MUSIC.
 * This is something that was easily fixed. ✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the article itself, it still has a references-needed tag at the top.
 * I'm not sure who placed that tag there, but I have now removed it as the article has sufficient references. Yes there are more sources out there but they are not required for a DYK nom.✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The text says the song was a collaboration but the infobox says Collins was the only writer.
 * Phil Collins wrote the song. Mark Manchina afterwards wrote some of the score so that it fit in with the song. I.e. both statements are true. ✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is very little information about the music in the song – what is the tempo, what key is it in, etc. There are no credits for who played on it.
 * That's okay. This isn't a Featured Article nomination. The article doesn't have to have complete coverage. I've added info on its production and reception, which is more than enough. ✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The "Critical reception" section is kind of sloppy – some writers are identified by periodical, some are not ("... the magazine's Catherina Applefeld Olsen ..." is especially mysterious), some periodicals are italicized, some are not.
 * Fixed the "mysterious" passage. I forgot to add "Billboard" to the previous sentence. This sentence continued the topic saying that another reviewer from the same magazine had this comment. Also fixed sloppiness and italisation. ✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Genesis is improperly in italics here too.
 * Fixed ✅--Coin945 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The footnotes are also inconsistent – some give the place of publication, some do not, and naming the Free Library doesn't give the original place of publication (which in one case is Howard Cohen of the Miami Herald.  There is no source given for the German charts placement.  There is a category for 1998 songs even though the movie was released in mid-1999.
 * While it is not a requirement for citations to be perfect (again this is not an FAR), I have tidied up the citations for the nom. Some bits and pieces are left over from the version of the article before I started work. The 1998 category and Chart peak are examples of this. I removed them both.✅--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that a press release is used as a cite. Business Wire is a press release factory and the actual writer of what you are citing is Walt Disney Records (look at the bottom).  You cannot use what is said there ("perfectly captured") as critical commentary and you should be careful about using any of it.
 * Fair point. I've now removed the source.✅--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, no indication of whether a QPQ has been done in the two weeks since the nomination.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * QPQ is DONE!✅--Coin945 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to all your comments.--Coin945 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean you should remove Category:1998 songs completely, but to change it to Category:1999 songs.
 * Added Category:1999 songs ✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean you should remove the German charts box, but rather source it. It took me less than a minute: go to German Singles Chart, click on the first entry in External links, enter two worlds in the search box, and presto – in October 2000 it was on the chart for five weeks and peaked at number 43.  The site is in German but you don't have to know any to figure out this much.
 * Re-added Chart content and sourced it.✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You still lack consistency in the text of the Critical reception section. If you are going to identify the individual writers for some of the quotes, you might as well identify the writers for all of them.  And the name of the publication is Billboard, not Billboard Magazine.
 * I have added consistency to the Critical reception section ✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The citing is still too sloppy. No one is saying this has to be FAC ready, but for an article going up on the main page, it should be better than this.  Fn 1 is missing an author and a title.  Fn 2 is missing a title, which should be the thing in quotes not the publication.  The remaining use of Fn 3 should indicate it is a press release – Cite press release is good for this.  Fn 5 is missing a publication.  Fn 6 is missing an author and a title.  Fn 7 is missing the second author.  Fn 8 is to the wrong publication – the Daily News is the page scraper/assembler perhaps, but the Howard Cohen article appeared in the Miami Herald (and from this page I think the agency is Knight-Ridder).
 * Some of the sources do not have clear authors (such as the German Charts), but for the rest I have included author names and titles. ✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one author wrote the Tarzan review (which I have included). Two authors are listed at the top because the url lists a bunch of reviews which were done by two authors.✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have indicated that the press release is as such.✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have swapped the Daily News source for the Knight Ridder one, and fixed the sourcing accordingly.✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact that things were sloppy in the version before you did 5x expansion doesn't matter – when we undertake such things for any kind of reviewed status, we own it all.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is true. I did not state it as an excuse; merely as an explanation.✅--Coin945 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, this is now good enough to go up. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)