Talk:Love Machine (Girls Aloud song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Love Machine (Girls Aloud song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Love Machine (Girls Aloud song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 1, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Arctic Monkeys cover

I seem to remember the Arctic Monkeys' lead singer flipping out and telling his fans to "fuck off" after they started chanting for Love Machine once, but I couldn't find anything about this. Does anyone have any links so I can include it in the article and reference it? Driller thriller 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junk source

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.

I understand the removal of info about Sound of the Underground, it's a case of WP:UNDUE, but I don't understand why musicOMH is classified as a junk source. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 04:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JUNK SOURCE fails WP:RS. The source from musicOMH by 'John Murphy' (a contributing editor) is unreliable because there are no qualifications or other indications of reliability presented on either the website or the writer's page. MusicOMH also admits on their website that "we're always looking for enthusiastic music, film, opera and theatre fans who would like to write - regardless of age or location"; enthusiasm to publish articles is not an indication of reliability. We therefore should not be using this source as we are not provided with any knowledge about the writer's qualifications and/or experience. Till 04:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert yourself now please? Till 04:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But musicOMH was listed on The Independent's 25 best music websites, and is linked by BBC to the site's reviews of The Proms (see here, here, here, and here). The site also interviewed many musicians such as Jay-Z and Miike Snow. How is it unreliable? - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 04:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained it. That particular source is not reliable because we are not given an indication of reliability from the creator of the source (John Murphy). MusicOMH admits it allows people to publish articles regardless of their age or location. It does not matter if the site was featured on The Independent's list. It does not matter who the site interviewed. 'Source' does not only refer to the publisher or work (musicOMH), but also the writer of the article and the article itself. If you still do not understand, please see WP:RS. Till 04:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am kind of neutral here. I have no problem with MusicOMH; I also use it but it should not be used for critical commentaries. You can use it to elaborate Composition. Saulo, for what exactly did you use the source? And Till, may I remind you that this is only a GAN not a FAC? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used it as a description of the song's composition, but the way the quote was taken clearly seems like a critical commentary. I can paraphrase if it's needed. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 04:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if this is "only a GAN not a FAC". All information on Wikipedia must come from reliable sources. An opinion piece from a 'contributing editor' of a website that allows anyone to publish an article is not acceptable. Till 04:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if this is "only a GAN not a FAC". Who told you this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S Saulo, yes. Please paraphrase it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who told me this? Wikipedia policy. All information must come from reliable sources. Till 06:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how is MusicOMH not a reliable source? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Did you literally not read a thing I wrote in this entire thread? Till 06:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, I assure you I have read everything. Care to reply to my query (once again even if according to you the answer is already above). With regard to All information must come from reliable sources, how is MusicOMH not a reliable source? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it allows anybody to publish articles on their website. I suppose if the writer is an expert or qualified writer it can be acceptable. Till 06:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So should I conclude that according to you, MusicOMH is reliable but the author is not reliable? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this context it's unreliable. It's not just a matter of looking at the publisher/work (musicOMH). You have to look at the author as well. For example, would you use this? No, because the writer is a 'user' of the site. It's the same with this musicOMH source. The writer is merely a 'contributing editor' with no qualifications. Till 07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic is unreliable; it is not accepted regardless of the author. You may any FAC reviewer. It can be used in GAs sometimes. However, MusicOMH is accepted in FACs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic is unreliable if the author is unreliable. They have reliable staff reviews there. MusicOMH is unreliable if the writer is not qualified, because they let anyone publish articles and admit it on their website. If the writer is experienced/qualified, it can be used. That is all I have to say on this issue. Till 08:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Sputnikmusic has never been accepted by FAC reviewers. NEVER! Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:05, 16 December 2012 (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.

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love Machine (Girls Aloud song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 14:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General

Info box

The info box has a bit of a cluttered feel. I think because there is an alternate cover, you should move the audio file to the Composition section (with a description) and move the music video link to it's own section at the bottom of the article like on "Trouble". It will make it look a lot better.
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add a length duration template, like on "Glassheart"
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The backing track was inspired by The Smiths, and created by Powell and Coler." → Not sure what you mean by backing track here?
"with elements of the 1980 synthpop songs." → I'd say "with elements of 80s synthpop" because the "songs" but makes it sound like it has sampled 80s songs.
Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link music critics
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"debuted and peaked at number 2 on the Official Charts Company in the United Kingdom" → debuted and peaked at number 2 on the UK Singles Chart
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
", while charting in Netherlands in 2005." → I'd just remove this
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link music video
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"in all of their" → on all of their
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

"debuted and peaked at number 2 on the Official Charts Company in the United Kingdom" → debuted and peaked at number 2 on the UK Singles Chart
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

Could this be expanded more?
Now see, I had a huge problem with this section, because I couldn't find that many info on the music video. I searched tons of websites for reviews, I went on Google Books to see if I could find any info on it also and nothing. The only link with major info about it is that one, and everything is really technical, like this bit: "The music video was onlined by Joe Billington at Rushes with Dom Aarons completed the final color grading there. Triangle Online handled the final online. According to Gosling, the online included a 10-hour Flame session where Flame artist Mark Beardal created opening and ending title sequences. During the online, Beardall also performed additional color correction, added CGI lens flare and starbursts, and provided general cosmetic clean up." So I'm not sure what I can do about this... - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

Organise this into year by year for performances. It's disjointed reading about 2012 at the start and 2009 at the end.
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

Add a reference.
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Two separate tables, one for 2004 and one for 2005.
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark them up for access so that the Chart column has the shaded bit of grey like on "Glassheart" for example.
Done - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Check for linking. FN1 for example doesn't have the work or publisher linked.
Take a look and see if everything is fine. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. AARON• ^TALK 22:28, 1 January 2013 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Machine (Girls Aloud song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130214731/http://www.musicomh.com/albums/girls-aloud.htm to http://www.musicomh.com/albums/girls-aloud.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Love Machine (Girls Aloud song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love Machine (Girls Aloud song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]