Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Footlessmouse (talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this over the next couple of days. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I want to officially note the backlog of two previous GA nominations and two peer reviews all in the last 90 days. This review may take longer than usual as I will have to take those and progress into consideration. The article will ultimately be judged only by the criteria, however, in the state it will be in just before the review is closed out. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All problems I have found were addressed. Each statement and paragraph is clear and spelling and grammar are good. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Multiple problems raised by me and second opinions were addressed by nom. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead summarizes article, layout guidelines are followed, W2W were addressed and the lists are appopriate and formatted correctly for this type of article. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference section follows layout guidelines Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
It uses appropriate inline citations for quotes and figures and other contentious materials. Sources are reliable and appropriate for statements made. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
No original research or synthesis found Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Using Earwig's gopyvio Detector with all options, Turnitin returns nothing and only quotes and common phrases are repeated verbatim in external websites and references. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Problems in this area broached by previous reviews have been corrected. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
It stays focused without unnecessary detail Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Encyclopedic tone upheld throughout Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Article has not been edited in a couple of days, no history of edit waring, occasional anonymous vandalism. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Three total images. Proper fair use rationale are provided for two images: a screenshot of the music video and CD cover art. Third image is share alike 3.0 Unported picture of singer on stage.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All images relevant to song and music video (and to Etta James who's sample the song is based on) All have appropriate captions. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have allowed multiple other 2nd opinions to help as I am relatively unfamiliar with song articles and all suggestions have been remedied. The nominator has worked hard and responded quickly to all complaints raised and I now believe that it qualifies under the GA guidelines. It passes each of the criteria and therefore this review is a pass. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of previous reviews

@Kyle Peake: given your prior involvement with these reviews. I would greatly appreciate any comments or critiques you may have for the current state of the article. Footlessmouse (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of pervious reviews within last 90 days. I will not sign each note in this section—it exists for the sole purpose of my review of previous editorial reviews. Please do not modify this section or any of its subsections, if anyone has a comment, please start a new section below. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PR1 here lists only a few miscellaneous small problems the editor subsequently fixed.

Nomination dispute

On 3 August 2020, there was a small dispute on whether User:Lazman321 should be allowed to nominate the article:

User:MarioSoulTruthFan removed the GA nomination, almost as soon as it was posted by User:Lazman321, with a note in the edit summary here
User:Lazman321 reverted the edit removing the nomination with a note here

Issues raised:

Was then no commercial performance section (there is one now)
The live performances, composition and critical sections should be in prose rather than list form (also fixed)
Claims Lazman321 is not a major contributor (as of now, xtools shows Lazman321 is the article's primary author with an order of magnitude more authorship credit than any other editor)

GR1 and PR2

GR1 was quick-failed by K. Peake, who also reviewed the article more thoroughly for PR2.

PR2 includes a long list of problems needing addressing, each of which I will verify has been resolved or is not necessary.

Article is quick failed GA for lack of thoroughness, including the previously mentioned commercial performance section and accolades
- Further, the article was not clear, with many awkward sentences and single-sentence paragraphs
- Claims the lead was poorly written

GR2

Talk:Levels (Avicii song)/GA2 was failed for unreliable sources, some of which I believe the reviewer was too quick to label, as a reliable source depends on the statement being sourced. Otherwise, editors made an attempt to fix the problem here prior re-nominating the page.

Resolved 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

After each of these, please create a new line starting with one of **{{done}}, **{{not done}}, or **{{question}} and give an explanation if necessary and sign. I will have many many more comments and suggestions, but I will give you a chance to work on these in the meantime.

The CD art does not have a caption in the infobox, there is a place to put that in and it is necessary. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The caption for the picture of Etta James should say that it is a picture of Etta James singing on stage at a concert, then it can say that the sample is incorporated into Avicii's song. It needs an appropriate caption for the picture. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Second paragraph of lead - too much detail for lead. Reword to exclude the interview information at the least. The fact that he didn't expect it to be famous isn't even necessary there, it is already in the body and is not a major notable aspect of the song, though it is a fun fact. The bit about Arash Pournouri is definitely unnecessary detail in the lead. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and combined the first and second paragraphs.
When stating Several critics consider "Levels" to be one of Avicii's greatest songs and one of the greatest EDM songs of all time. To say it is one of the greatest EDM songs of all time is borderline with respect to contentious claims and it is best to cite it each time it appears. (Not to say that I don't whole-heartedly agree with the assessment). Also, the title of the Billboard article clearly singles it out as one of the greatest songs of all time, no need to qualify with EDM, that is a reliable source. However, the problem is that greatest is not used in the body, it only says "biggest", so the claim is unreferenced, though there is a perfectly good reference already there. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The synth hook is repeated throughout most of the song, and is accompanied by a chord progression of C♯m–E–B–A. One sentence with 7 citations scattered throughout. I am not sure if this is original research, but please fix this. Pick the one source that mentions everything and use only that, the others are not necessary, otherwise break it up. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, trimmed down the amount of citations to three, the billboard citation, the book citation, and the sheet music citation. The billboard citation backs up the synth hook being repeated, the book citation backs up the presence of a chord progression, and the sheet music backs up the specific chords used.

Resolved 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Rework the whole last paragraph of the lead. No unnecessary details and clarity. Combine the first two sentences and prune the last three. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done for the combination of the two sentences. Not done for the pruning the last three sentences. I feel like that the last paragraph has the right amount of detail to summarize the music video.
  - Could you combine the last three sentences into only two so that it flows better? Clarity was more important than detail. It is fine to keep it if it is clear and concise. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done
Development and release reword this entire section to use original language from Wikipedia editors. It is a string of quotes when it should be prose backed up by quotes. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Are you sure? There is prose used throughout the section. Only the first paragraph uses quotes and even then, they are usually used to back up the accompanying prose.
  - Sorry for the vagueness, yes but only really a couple of sentences are necessary. Starting with He then mentioned that his producer when it immediately enters another quote, put more substance in between these two quotes please. Consider just paraphrasing that second quote instead and using the quote as a reference. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done
Also, add progressive house to the lead. Maybe even the first sentence, it is a progressive house song by Swedish DJ... Footlessmouse (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done though not in the first sentence.
Use the term "the song" in the lead a couple times so as to avoid quoting "Levels" so many times. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
"After the dreamy interlude," => drop "dreamy" for encyclopedic tone. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
So I have never listened to the original version all the way through until now, it is significantly different than the radio edit, can more of a distinciton between the two versions be made in the body, for example in the Development and Composition sections? It is mentioned in the infobox and the track listings but nowhere else I can see. Footlessmouse (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done I would if I could, but I can't find any good source that specifically states the difference between the two versions. If I was able to, I could add it to the composition section. Billboard does mention that there is an original version of the "Levels", but all it says about it is it is "necessary" for the "full experience". It doesn't mention that actual difference.
  - Note This is what I assumed. GA criteria demand the article only cover the main aspects as determined from the reliable sources, so this is not required. Footlessmouse (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining suggestions for prose

Lead Suggestion for lead: Move the second paragraph into the first, making them the second and third sentences (combine last two sentences of second paragraph). This establishes the song's notability in the opening paragraph as it should. Also reword last two sentences of first paragraph and combine into one, with something like "Avicii has stated that he made the song so that he could incorporate a vocal sample from the 1962 gospel-inspired song "Something's Got a Hold on Me" by Etta James." That sentence can be part of either of the two remaining lead paragraphs. I think the lead will flow a bit better. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Fill out intro sentence by adding one of "through Universal Music Group" or "on iTunes" after the release date. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Did both suggestions. I have also decided to make the development part of the first paragraph, its own paragraph.
Development and release
- " said that he really wanted to use a vocal sample from Etta James" => say "expressed desire to use" or something, since the next sentence begins with "He said". Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
- "In a separate interview with The Austin Times, Avicii was asked whether or not he intended "Levels" to be a big hit, he said, "Not at all."" => "Avicci has stated that he did not expect the song to be so popular. In an interview with The Austin Times, where he was asked if he intended for the song to be a big hit, he responded by saying 'Not at all'.". Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done By the way, you accidentally put down "Avicci" instead of "Avicii".
- "it took a long time to be a hit " => "it took a long time to become a hit". Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
- Just above last paragraph, mention that the final version of the song was played at Ultra Music Festival, it jumps right in with "After the 2011 Ultra Music Festival", assuming the reader has already read the lead. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not done It was already mentioned in the second paragraph.
    - Sorry about that, can you combine those two paragraphs? The information is continuous and the first one is a stubby paragraph. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done
Composition Combine last two sentences of first paragraph with something like this "The synth hook, which is accompanied by a chord progression...^{[citation needed]}, is repeated throughout most of the song."^{[citation needed]}. It avoids being choppy and original research. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Check for spaces between references and remove them. i.e. "</ref> <ref>". This causes display problems sometimes. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Critical reception replace "Levels" with "the song" a few times. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
"According to director Petro Papahadjopoulos' website" => drop website, if the website is his, then it is according to him. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The reason why I said, "Petro Papahadjopoulos' website" is because on the website, Papahadjopoulos refers to himself in the third person.
"has since been subject to link rot." With the link to the actual website, this is original research, just don't mention it. Just point to the archived version of the website. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Note

I am finished with critically reviewing the prose of the article. I see no major complaints outside of what I have listed above and what has already been resolved. I am now going over references in detail and will double check the previous PR and GR for extra points. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major problems

You must remove the reference to facebook, it is the definition of an unpublished, unreliable source. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done There are four references to Facebook. Two of them are from Tim Bergling, the writer of the song (also known as Avicii), and two of them are from Richie Greenfield, who MTV News did confirm was the choreographer of the music video, making his statements about the music video trustworthy.
"It was Avicii's fifth song to make it to Sverigetopplistan's weekly charts." => needs citation Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
"One of the only times "Levels" was criticized was by Simon Darnell " => this is also original research. Just say one criticism of "Levels" can from Simon Darnell The lack of other criticism may imply this point, but you're not allowed to say it. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
References 10, 50, 52, 55, 60, 61, 64, 65, 76, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, and 132 are all missing access dates, this was previously addressed in your last GA fail and qualifies me to fail the article again with no questions asked. I will, however, give you time to fix them as you have been quick to respond thus far. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Other

Do you know why some citations say retrieved while others don't? I don't think it's a deal breaker, but a completely consistent reference style is preferred. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Can you please be a little bit more clear. What are the other citations saying instead of retrieved?
  - Some of them juxtapose the date right next to the title without saying anything at all. Footlessmouse (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? If there are dates next to the title and they aren't saying retrieved, those are just the dates of when the webpage was published. They appear next to the title because the author is unknown.
"promoting the song and make it popular." => drop "and make it popular" promoting the song is sufficient. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
In lead " in March 2011, referred to by Avicii on his promo trailer as" => you can just say it was called, but you could also say "where it was referred to" to be just a little more clear. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Second opinion

I am done with my initial review, I have found many problems, and some were already addressed by the nominator in a timely manner. I have just found many more problems which I will give the nominator a chance to fix. In the meantime, I am officially asking for a second opinion for a few reasons. This is outside my area of editing expertise, so it would be great to have input from editors familiar with song articles, I am new to this process having just dove in this month, and the history of previous reviews and amount of problems raised. I am especially not familiar with reliability criteria for the various websites used to document the charts, though as they only document charts I presume they are good enough. Comments from independent editors are most welcome. If you have a comment, please leave under this section with a new fourth level heading (i.e. 4 equal signs before and after section title) Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the problems listed below, including removing the Mega Top 50, adding table headers, and fixing the release history label. Any additional comments are welcome, thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

Second opinion

I took a look at the certifications table and I found some problems, the table is automatic in various cases. However, the nominator didn't take a look at that and decided to copy and post several link, with many of them not working properly, wrong artists and so on. I have fixed it myself. Regarding you concerns on the charts, the Brazilian one with the PDF seems not to be working properly, so either remove it or find a replacement. The rest is fine since the providers are the offical, see here for a list of them and reliable sources, some accessdates are missing in said table. I would ask to remove the Mega Top 50 as it is not listed on the preivous list I mentioned and it seems its data only considers a couple of radio stations. Tables are missing header, and the release history is missing the label. iTunes is publisher, not work. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Close soon

@Kyle Peake: Do you have any comments before this GA is closed. I will go back over it one more time to make sure, but nom has fixed all issues I am aware of. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Footlessmouse Not taking on a full review of myself but rather a brief analysis of the article, I would say that the issues currently are citations in the lead for info that is backed up in the body, refs not in numerical order and the release history table having columns centered below the top one when they should not be. --K. Peake 10:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Footlessmouse: @Kyle Peake:

Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts

@Lazman321: Thank you for your cooperation and quick responses. This article will need quite a bit of help before it can be tried for Featured Article status, as the article must obey ALL MOS guidelines and be "thorough". That being said, the GA guidelines are relatively lax and require only a few of the guidelines be followed. One note about the GA criteria that is important is that it does not have to be "thorough" but it must discuss to some extent just the major topics discussed in the sources. That is a relatively low bar to climb over. The article as it stands right now is only 13 kB of prose, which is very short for an article over such a popular topic. So there is definitely a lot of room for expansion and improvement. I would personally rewrite a few of the paragraphs, but taking that into account is against the GA review guidelines, which require only the article is clear and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail. Due to this, I have determined that at this point in time, the GA requirements are met in this article. Great job on the article and congratulations on getting the GA pushed through. Footlessmouse (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]