Talk:Butterfly Fly Away/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a review- the GA situation really is not good. I hope it has been worth the wait...

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
If something belongs to Cyrus, it is Cyrus's, not Cyrus'
Done Fixed. Mephiston999 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The music caption could do with some tweaking

B. MoS compliance:
Refs 3, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18 and 21 have unwarranted italics, and ref 7 needs the link fixing
Done Fixed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
"adult contemporary"- got a ref for that?
Done Added in text. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I'd like to hear more about the film... How did it feature? Was it sung in-character, or just a background song? Credits? Was it even used? Any further expansion generally would also be nice.
Done ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
The live perfomances section seems a little over-detailed... Why does it matter what they were wearing? Also not wild about the external links... Do we have a legit video of it being performed/played? If not, I'd cut them all... Also, please lose the navboxes on which this article does not appear.
Done Emphasis removed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
I have fairly major concerns with both files. The sound file lacks a real rationale- it needs a serious touching up. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful, or I could do it for you if you like. Further, though I have no concerns with the quality/length of the sample (both seem about right) I do question whether this is the best sample- is this the chorus? There's the sound of M singing solo and the two of them duetting, but not BR singing solo? Does he sing solo?

He does solo, but there's no way to include parts of both solos and comply with the 10% rule. This sample includes part of one solo, part of the duet, part of the chorus, and lyrics referencing a caterpillar, so it looks like a good portion to use. Thanks for adding the rationale! Liquidluck✽talk 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second image is simply not required- it adds nothing to the article (as what they looked like during that particular performance doesn't matter...) and has a copy-paste rationale that is simply inaccurate. This would be grounds for a speedy fail, but that would be unfair after the amount of time you've waited for a review. If you're looking for another image, a free portrait of M or BR would probably be your best bet.
Done Image removed. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

More comments

I'm still not feeling this article is quite there. Here are some more general notes-

The "background" section is not really a background section- it just jumps straight into a rather technical discussion of the music. For me, a background section would discuss inspiration, production, writing, that kind of thing first. There is some of that afterwards, but it's still not right. I can't put my finger on it...

Done, I believe. I added more info about filming the scene and switched the paragraphs. Liquidluck✽talk 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus' -> Cyrus's Done
I can't access ref 2- does it contain a discussion of the genre?
"The song was included on the short list for Best Original Song at the 82nd Academy Awards.[10]" Who won it, in the end? I'd say this is a major claim of notability, and should be expanded upon if possible.

Done. The winner hasn't been announced yet, but I added that it failed to achieve a nomination. Liquidluck✽talk 20:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this is by no means a bad article- it just needs a little more pushing. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but get the feeling that this still isn't quite there, but I'm not sure what else there is that can be done. It's a very minor topic... I'm happy to promote. I'm not sure what I can say with regards to pushing for FA, if that is planned- the topic seems so minor, it looks like it just couldn't get much further. J Milburn (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.