Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Captive Heart (song)/1

Captive Heart (song)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Captive_Heart_(song)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist Wizardman  14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Per this discussion I made earlier, I would like to redirect this article to the parent album but it would need the consensus from the community to delist this article from GA status first. Best – jona  ✉ 14:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Due to the song passed WP:NSONGS, and it charted on two significant record charts, my opinion says Keep for now. However, the article does contain some misleading information that needs to be fixed. What I'm talking about pertains to the Canadian Hot 100, which did not exist during the time "Captive Heart" was eligible chart, yet it lists that it charted on the Hot 100 twice over a span of two years. I assume either yourself or the creator of the article was mistaken, and confused the current Canadian Hot 100 with the similarly active RPM that was Canada's chart from 1964 to 2000. (The Canadian Singles Chart took over from 2000 to 2007, while the Canadian Hot 100 has continued its efforts since 2007.) Considering the song was nominated for "Tejano Crossover Song of the Year" and "Song of the Year" at the Tejano Music Awards, this is a definite keeper., can you further clarify on why you want to redirect this article? I read your explanation on the other talk page, but I still don't think I'm getting the gist of the situation. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 05:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
 * The song never impacted any music charts and I can't verify if it was ever nominated for a TMA. I tried searching and even the source request page couldn't locate any source that said it was nominated while I was working on a similar category for the TMAs. Best – jona  ✉ 11:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why is it on there? Carbrera (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed it after I replied. – jona  ✉ 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. But I can't help but notice that it still passes WP:NSONGS and it was released as a CD single. Carbrera (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all singles released are notable though, but I'll see what others have to say. Thanks for responding – jona  ✉ 20:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Since notability is not a GA criterion, I don't understand why NSONGS is relevant to this discussion, Carbrera. The question is whether the article itself meets the six GA criteria. I realize that AJona1992 is looking to not only delist the article but ultimately to redirect it, but we're just concerned with GA status here. Given that a significant amount of information has been removed, and the article was not that big to begin with, it may well fail to meet one or more of the criteria. Carbrera, you haven't addressed that at all, and a GA reassessment should. (If this applies to either of the other two articles in AJona1992's requests, please take another look at those as well.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that NSONGS is not relevant to this discussion, but what part of the "six GA criteria" does the article not meet? It is well written, it is now verifiable with no original research, it's broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated by images if possible. Carbrera (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Carbrera, that was my question to you: whether it met the criteria. You now say it does, but a quick look through it finds sentences like Recording sessions had taken nearly less than a week to complete the song, plus While, according to the Chicago Tribune, "Captive Heart" was destined for urban-contemporary radio, and The Daily Vault instated that it was a one-way ticket to voice destruction, among others equally problematic. There are also errors of punctuation and grammar, including odd tense shifts, and information in the lead that's nowhere else. It clearly doesn't meet the varied "well written" criteria at the moment, though a thorough copyedit plus attention to WP:LEAD would fix the issues. I do also wonder whether the article remains broad enough in its coverage given what's left. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I would suggest to Ajona1992 that a copyedit be performed, much like you suggested. Carbrera (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist: It has been about two months since the above discussion, and the prose issues remain. The article is not well written, and should not be listed as a GA in its present form. If I were rating it for a WikiProject, I'd probably make it C class. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delist - no improvements made; not broad in its coverage. I don't think that there's a problem with the way that it's written, I just don't think that there's enough there since all the unsourced stuff was removed. Spiderone  14:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delist per the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)