Wikipedia:Peer review/This Little Light/archive1

This Little Light
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if I can get it up to GA standard. I've compared it to some (much shorter) good articles about songs, and this one seems to be of a similar(ish) quality, but I wanted to run it through a PR before I listed it at GAN. My main areas of concern are whether it's an issue that some of the section headers are being displaced, and whether the article is using too many pieces of non-free media - the single was accompanied by two distinctly different music videos, so is it appropriate to have two separate screenshots? I also welcome any other ways that this article could be improved. Thanks very much in advance! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

Background and release
 * "... is based around ..." -> "... is based on ..."


 * "... at a gig ..."
 * "Gig" is informal, which is not a suitable language for an encyclopaedia.


 * "... eight-date schools tour ..."
 * What is an "eight-date"?


 * "The band encouraged people to make a note of the release date and to download the single, with Lindz West, LZ7's frontman, remarking: "What we don't want is anyone phoning up stations and saying 'Why aren't you playing this song?', because that just creates a bad name for us in the first place. What we do want is people buying it and getting it to the position where it has to go on the radio airplay lists and the stations have to play it.""
 * West's words can be summarised ("West asked consumers to buy the song"); they are not needed in its full form, which seems to be an advertisement (a positive spiel of their motives that come straight from their mouths). Regardless, every artist would be requesting consumers and his or her fan to buy the music, so I do not think this information is a notable part about this song.


 * "It featured alongside remixes from Kenny Hayes and Starz Angels as part of a four-track EP, ..."
 * This sentence is wrong (the verb "feature" is wrongly used). See here.

Critical reception
 * ""This Little Light" received little radio airplay and few reviews from mainstream music critics."
 * The cited source is correct for "little radio airplay" but does not state anything related to "few reviews from mainstream music critics".


 * Why are we directed to South by SouthSonic?


 * Why are we directed to Music by Louder Than the Music ?


 * It is not noted that three of the four reviews raised here are from sites devoted to Christian music (big difference from the general music reviewers).

Sources
 * What makes SouthSonic a reliable site per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches? Or more particularly in this case, what makes them respected reviewers in the music industry?


 * Same for Louder Than the Music


 * One might ask about sound7.de as well.


 * The Yahoo Music! blog might be acceptable for GAN, but would need further justification for FAC (Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97).

Media


 * File:ThisLittleLightVideo1.PNG and File:ThisLittleLightVideo2.png: These are simply images that just describes the scene, which words are perfectly doing well. I do not need the image to visualize the band members in an ice cream van, nor of it to think of them handing out lights to the crowd.  Similarly, the picture of the band as they perform in a park surrounded by tall buildings does not give me further understanding than what "These stories are cut between shots of LZ7 performing "This Little Light" both in front of the tower block and in front of garages." already says.  In short, these images fail WP:NFCC #8 (contextual significance).  To fulfill #8, the images must be illustrating commentary of some significance that would require more than words to fully understand the idea/scenario presented; the commentary must also be closely relevant to the image.


 * File:LZ7ThisLittleLight.ogg: The assertion that "The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus" is false. Nowhere in this current article does it relate to this specific sample.  The reviewers' comments are generic in focus (i.e. on the whole song instead of the sample).  This then also violates NFCC #8.  A music sample could be justified if there is critical commentary specific about a sequence or melody in the music, describing certain attributes or experience that would require listening to the sample to understand.  I am not seeing anything that specific in the article at the moment to justify this piece.

The big concerns are of the use of "non-free" media. I understand that this song is not really widely covered by mainstream reviews, but maybe there is a limit in terms of Wikipedia-quality to what can be assessed for borderline or low-notability items if we go with reliable sources. Jappalang (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks very much for the review Jappalang, your comments have been really helpful. Clearly it's not going to be quite as easy to get this article to GA status as I first thought - looks like I've still got quite a lot of work to do, so I'd best get on it. Thanks again! A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 09:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)