Template:Did you know nominations/Underwater Love (Smoke City 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 Victuallers (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Underwater Love (Smoke City song)

 * ... that after "Underwater Love" by Smoke City became a hit, lead singer Nina Miranda ended her holiday to discuss a record deal?



5x expanded by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Comment Hook and article need quotation marks around the title (MOS:TITLEQUOTES). hinnk (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed both.-- Laun  chba  ller  15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Time and expansion look good. I'm assuming the reference is in the YouTube video linked from the website. Could you please clarify where in the video I would find that information? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good lord, that is not the same website I visited when I used the source. That looks like someone's put all the components of a good website into a bag, shaken it, and smashed it against a brick wall. Looking through the history I see I added the reference in this edit. I will at some other point have a rummage through Archive sites to see if I can find the reference in question.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, what other archival services are there beyond the Wayback Machine?-- Laun  chba  ller  23:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure. I know of webcitation.org, but that's a free on-demand service. I'm not sure where else to find an archived version of the pre-terrible version of the page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the reference with a link to the June 24, 2013 archive version. You may have to scroll a bit to see the text but it does have the text you've been seeking. One note: the source says "Whilst living in Brazil" but the article and hook claim she was on holiday there. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd always assumed that was what she meant but I've changed it anyway.-- Laun  chba  ller  10:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to go now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Striking hook as unsupported by the article, which says nothing about a holiday. Please come up with a new hook that's in the article and supported by sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I saw that it had been changed in the article and assumed that the hook had also been updated. You are correct that the hook needs to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that after "Underwater Love" by Smoke City became a hit, lead singer Nina Miranda returned to the UK from Brazil to discuss a record deal?-- Laun  chba  ller  00:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, Launchballer hasn't supplied a QPQ, and the review doesn't mention checking a number of DYK criteria, including close paraphrasing and neutrality. Only age and 5x expansion were covered in the initial review along with the hook sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your offer to take over this review, BlueMoonset. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've used this one yet.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New full review needed; previous review omitted a number of standard DYK criteria. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would appear that BlueMoonset is not returning to finish his review. As someone who has been active in DYK for several years, I am familiar with the criteria. Yeah, I turned an intentionally blind eye to the quid pro quo. I just think it's a bad rule. You caught me, though. As previously stated, this nomination meets the criteria. Now can it be promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg GaryColemanFan, I never said I would be doing the review, I said that given the errors to date, a new review was needed, and called for a new reviewer, which is what the red arrow means. If your original review had mentioned other criteria, such as close paraphrasing, I wouldn't have mentioned the problem, but your (as it turns out, willful) missing the QPQ and hook issues made me think it was best to begin again with someone else. Having done a more complete check now, given your renewed approbation, and compared the excessively quote heavy Critical reception section to its primary source, it looks to me like far too much of the text from The Pitch Online has been used, both in quote and close paraphrasing—almost the entire final half of the sourced article, well beyond fair use—including a quote that misrepresents the original text by adding an ellipsis and then a word from earlier in the article, as if it had appeared later. With 770 characters of quotes in that one section alone (only 329 are non-quotes), out of a total of 2429, that leaves 1659 unquoted, and a 5x expansion requirement of 2130 prose characters (from 426). The article still needs significant work before it is ready for the main page. (Would a high school newspaper like The Pitch Online be considered a reliable source?) Once this section has been revised, I'd want Nikkimaria to take a look at it to make sure it has been sufficiently distanced from its source material. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I've just binned copious amounts of that Pitch Online source and replaced it. I've also added some bits found on Google Books - better?-- Laun  chba  ller  13:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A little better, but major problems still remain. You've used the entire 39-word text of the New Musical Express review, which is a clear violation of fair use policy. Added to the other long quotes in that section, including what remains from Pitch, there are still 718 characters of quotes, quite a bit for a 974 character Critical reception section and even for a 2571 prose character article. The Bromley quote needs to be identified better by including the page number in the reference, since the book runs 334 pages and the quote could be anywhere within it. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added the page number 122 and slashed the beginning and end of the NME review. It would be difficult to cut much more than that without altering the meaning/rendering it grammatically incorrect, though I'll have a look when I wake up in the morning with fresh eyes. I count 22 words remaining.-- Laun  chba  ller  01:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * QPQ donation of Hastie Weir and some additional text Victuallers (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already donated a QPQ for this, though the further prose is appreciated. I've slashed the NME review down even further - better?-- Laun  chba  ller  11:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Given the recent additions and fixes, let's get a new reviewer in here to give a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, neutral. Only copyvios hits are quotes, which are now at a more manageable length as per the above. No close paraphrasing found via spot checks. Ref 2, which is the source for quite a bit of this article and the hook, links to an archive that isn't loading for me. Does the archive load for you/others? I'm currently unable to check verifiability of the majority of the article or the hook as a result. I think that check is necessary because the website appears to be a self-published source. Even assuming good faith, someone should be able to lay eyes on it to make sure the claims made do not go beyond what is appropriate as per WP:SELFPUB. Could you shed some light on whether the archive is or was working for you at some point? ~ RobTalk 04:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Try scrolling down - it's a poorly designed website, there are lots of photos that have since been removed.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That did the trick; stupid Macs that lack always-visible scroll bars. Anyway, I'd like to see a different source for the statement that this song was an underground hit. Sourcing that to something that's self-published does not meet SELFPUB, as the artist has a clear motivation to play up their success. The hook itself is cited appropriately, and after this issue is taken care of, I'll approve. ~ RobTalk 09:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out because charting in ten countries is not an underground hit.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling it just a "hit" still can't be sourced to a self-published source. Could you use a different citation that references charting in 10 countries? That would be sufficient to call it a hit. ~ RobTalk 22:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its about time we gave another nom a try at being the oldest.... to assist (the alt below is sourced to allmusic.com) Victuallers (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that the songwriters of "Underwater Love" were influenced by Brazil, Santana and 70s funk?
 * I really must ring up my internet provider, I had tried to send a comment two days ago to the effect of why do I need a source for the fact that it was a hit when it is easier to link to the Chart performance section? ALT2 is fine - ?-- Laun  chba  ller  19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 good to go. I added a ref from the charts section to source the word "hit". ~ RobTalk 05:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)