Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Better Than Today/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 16:54, 20 July 2011.

Better Than Today

 * Nominator(s):  I Help, When I Can. [12] 09:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Last FAC, the reviewers told me to take this article back to peer review, which I have done. I feel that all comments are now resolved.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 09:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations or not
 * I added locations when a certain publication with many different nation versions was used more than once. Eg. Citing 7 digital in France then citing it in Germany.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the qualifications of the author of this blog?
 * Reporter for BBC Music.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in how publishers are notated. For example, compare refs 4 and 26
 * Done.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not done - that was an example only, and inconsistencies remain. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the whole thing. There are some differences because in web entries is used and in news entries  is used.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 05:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 31: publisher?
 * Because the source is a video, the template is used.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? What is the original source of the embedded video?
 * He is a reporter for Yahoo Music. The embedded video is the record label's upload.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This?
 * They are used for reviews, not citing facts in the article.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A) No, that's not the case - for example, one of those sources is used to cite facts about performance practice, and B) how does that make these high-quality reliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me an example of A so I can better address this. Those are the opinions of those publications. Opinion ≠ fact. Reliability is not a factor here.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 34, for instance, cites facts about the music video. As to your second point, we must consider why the opinions of those publications are relevant here. To take an extreme example: if I, a non-notable writer with no professional experience reviewing music, were to create a personal blog to claim that "Better Than Today" in my opinion proved that Minogue was from Pluto, would you include this opinion in the article? Reliability is always a factor, and FAs are required to use high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Idolator is a reliable website used in many (GA/FA) articles. Go ahead and do a search, I'll wait... And to answer your question, I would include it. I would say, "Nikkimaria's E-Zine thought that 'Better Than Today' proved Minogue was from Pluto." Notice that I did not say, "Minogue is from Pluto."  I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but Idolator is not a reliable website. It has no journalistic, critical or authoritative creditbility on any subject that it publishes. Kinda like About.com. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 12:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Support This is really well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All web citations need access dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no alt text for the two "Music video" images (which is allowed), but the caption on "Background and synopsis" reads more like alt text. Consider moving it to the alt text and replacing with a less descriptive but more informative caption.
 * Done.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not sure this article is ready for FAC. There are major issues with prose and certain editorial choices that leave the article lacking. The background section is a bit short and reveal nothing about the writing and production process. Also, there is no "writing and recording" section at all, which is virtually imperative in an article of this nature. Two samples present a comparison between different versions of the song, but the section lacks any commentary upon this comparison. And, as expected, both samples lack individual, in-depth fair use rationales (not surprising, since their use in the article is not justified).  Other editorial concern: Reference 31 strikes me as a bit odd. You want us to go look for the information ourselves? The ref reads "For information on the crew's involvement, see..." but the youtube video you used added nothing more that a repeat of a phrase that you already included "I put this together with the help of my crew." For the second video, I didn't bother watching it. If it adds anything new, please include it in the article. Also prose issues: "'Better Than Today' was one of the more prominent results of the collaboration." I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say. Can you explain? Also, "The song has received positive and mixed reception from critics." I see what you're trying to say: positive in the album's context, but negative reception as a single. If my assumption is right that the quoted sentence is meant as a topic sentence for the entire section, you need to expand or revise it so it doesn't sound as awkward. I shouldn't have to read the entire section to get what the topic sentence is trying to say. One more thing: don't call Popjustice "they". Say "a review/writer etc from Popjustice said..." Popjustice and Contactmusic, being websites, should not be italicized. "During the week of 20 November 2010, "Better Than Today" made its UK Singles Chart debut at number 67."&mdash; was this a Tuesday or a Wednesday? I mean, you should write the date it first charted: "On 20 November 2010" or "On the singles chart dated 20 November" or "On the week ending 20 November" etc, not "During the week".  "This was based purely on digital sales from the album as the single was not released until 3 December 2010." Sentence is awkward. I think you can say it better. Something like "On 20 November 2010, before its official release as a single, the song debuted on the UK Singles Chart due to strong digital sales from the album" etc.  You've worked hard at the article, but I'm afraid it needs more sourcing, and information, and a copy-edit for style and prose.  Oran e   (talk)  05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at this point after everything, I'm officially done with this article. Count this as me withdrawing my nomination if you will. It's been so long. I'm through with this.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.