Talk:Legendary Lovers (song)/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Article needs reliable third-party sources that are not from album reviews. Currently, none are available. If none can be found within the next seven days, this will have to be delisted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how you do a good article reassessment. You have to file a request at WP:GAR following the provided instructions (pagespaces named Talk:(Article)/GA(page number) are only for new reviews, not reassessments.
Even if it was this way, you don't decide yourself whether the article gets deleted or not. Other users have to vote for either Demote or Keep.

If you want to delete this immediately be my guest however I recommend you leave the page as it is right now and when you do create the GAR page correctly, redirect this page to the newly-created one. prism^△ 16:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I read the guidelines on GARs a long time ago and didn't notice that individual reassessments could be filed. I think it would be best to ask more members on this because I've searched the entire web on this and I can't find anything (so it's pretty obvious you'll demote this). But really, does this fail any of the GA criteria?

Is it well written? I believe it is.
Is it verifiable? It may not meet the WP:NSONGS criteria as it is right now but it is verifiable indeed and its sources are of very high quality.
Does it pursue summary style thus respecting coverage broadness? Yes, it does. I don't see how it isn't, actually: it talks about everything of the song (recording, composition and lyrics, critical reception and commercial as well, etc.). At this point that's merely a bad excuse.
Is it neutral? Yes.
Is it stable? Yes.
Not really necessary, but is illustrated? It is as well. prism^△ 16:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose isn't the issue, and neither is stability, neutrality, or reliability. However, there's not much to verify on it. Seems too limited in coverage, particularly in commercial aspects. Sorry to have to do this, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where it needs to be verified, it is verified. Coverage is as broad as it gets for this kind of song (that isn't promoted with other kind of releases aside from the album release, and you sure get this...); consequently there isn't much on commercial aspects. But thank you for the comments as well, it's just heartbreaking to see that an article I worked a lot in is getting (most likely) demoted... If I could use unreliable sources I would, and the article would be bigger, but unfortunately I can't. I know it's not your fault you're doing this though, I understand your point of view on this. prism^△ 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you put in lots of effort, and I don't like the idea of having to demote articles anymore than you do. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since nothing has been done to address the concerns, I am delisting. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]