Talk:All the Way (Timeflies song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Reference 10 does not appear to be working. It appears as a dead link the "External links" Toolbox resource and I get an error page when attempting to load this. I know that you have "subscription required" as a note on this, but I just wanted to know if that is the issue or if it is something else.

Done – Seems like I accidentally had 2012 instead of 2014 hence the error. Thanks for catching this. Carbrera (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In the first paragraph of the lead, I would move "by Island Records" to a different spot to avoid making it sound like the digital download is by them. The location just seems a little odd to me.

Done

Do you really need to say "the then-unreleased studio album"? You can just say the album's name and get the same idea without being as wordy, and you can tell by comparing this song's release date and the album's release date that this was released prior to the album's release.

Done

The phrase "which were all revealed" sounds odd in the context of songs. I would say "released" or something else instead.

Done

The composition portion of the first section is rather short. Do you have any other information about the lyrics for instance?
A large portion of the first paragraph of the "Reception" section is quotes. I would advise you to be careful about using too many quotes; for instance, you do not really need the "awesome" quote as you can say something along the same lines for that one word quote.

Done

The "Reception" section is also extremely short. Do you have any other sources to expand this?

Done – Using your sources; thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

My primary concern is the question of notability. A large portion of the first paragraph of the "Background and composition" section talks about the album and the EP with very little information specifically about this song. The second paragraph about the composition and lyrics is quite short and this paragraph about the critical reception is also quite short. It makes me ask the following question: What makes this song notable enough to have its own page? Yes, it is a single and yes, it did chart, but it does not appear to have received significant coverage in outside sources. It seems all of this information can be reformatted and revised to fit comfortably in the article about the parent album so it would be helpful if you could expand this further if possible. If you cannot find additional sources, could you pull more of the sources that you already have listed? Here are some additional sources that you could use for further expansion and should prevent any concerns about notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 for some potential help.

Done – I used all of your source minus PopCrush and Direct Lyrics; thanks again. Carbrera (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I would remove this part (strong digital sales also prompted it) as it is obvious that the song must have had strong sales to get into that chart and the way it is currently worded makes it sound a little too much like a fan's perspective. It is better to just say that it entered the chart to be objective.

Done

Link Seventeen magazine in the "Music video" section.

Done

In the sentence about the lyric video, you say that it was in opposition to the claim that the band made in Seventeen magazine and that it was released instead of the music video. However, I do not see that supported in the source and it borders on original research. I would say remove the "Despite the claim" transition and the "instead" ending to avoid this.

Done

Remove "actual" in front of the word "music video" as it is unnecessary. A "fake" music video was never released so clarifying this is not necessary.

Done

The following phrase is strange for two reasons (several individuals doing various activities like snowboarding, surfing, riding dune buggies, and artists doing graffiti). First, who are the individuals? Are they members of the band? Extras? And second, I would rephrase the last part about the artists as it breaks the flow of the rest of the sentence. You go straight from listing several activities (verbs) straight into a new thought. You could add an "add" between surfing and riding to fix this. Also what separates the artists from the previously mention individuals? There appears to be some sort of separation between the two, at least from your sentence.

Done

Any information on whether they performed this song live? I found a few student-run newspapers from universities about live performances, but I am not sure if they can be used as resources here.

Done

This is missing a "Credits and personnel" section.

Not done – I would add it if I had access to a liner notes booklet. Unfortunately I cannot even find one online. :( Carbrera (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Link AllMusic in Reference 15.

Done

Link Billboard magazine in Reference 10.

Done

Final comments

@Carbrera: I apologize for the length of my comments. My primary advice for this article is to continue expanding it to prevent any concerns over notability. I have provided a few sources that may be useful, and you can do some research of your own. Also, certain information appears to be missing, specifically a "Credits and personnel" section and any information on live performances. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through the article again and most likely pass this. Hope you found this to be helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I was unsure of PopCrush's reliability so I avoided it but I will add it now per your helpful suggestions. I will get to this shortly, just not today. Thank you, Carbrera (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds good to me! And those links were there to help with maybe further expansion, but I am not saying that you have to use them. They were more so there to encourage you to look for more resources. Hope this helps a little bit. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: and @Aoba47: Pop Crush is not a reliable source, same goes for direct lyrics. Regarding andpop I'm not sure. Billboard is of course. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: My list of references were more so suggestions to look for further research on this as I believed that this article needs further expansion to support why it is notable enough to have its own page outside of the one for the parent article. That is all, but thank you for the message and for letting me know for future reference. I can be pretty bad with using non-notable sources so I will be more conscious of that in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But an unexperienced user (not Carbrera) might think that pop crush is a reliable source and such, so next time just be more careful. Keep up the good work. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; I appreciate the reminder as I agree that it is important to always keep in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: Just a reminder that this review has been up for a week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks. Is it alright if I finish this up on Thursday? That way I will have ample time to complete everything and address all of your concerns. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Of course. Feel free to take as much time as you need. I just wanted to remind me and check in to see your progress. Thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your review. I believe I went through all of your comments and addressed issues to the best of my capabilities. Please let me know if there is anything else that should be fixed. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Everything looks great; I ✓ Pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]