Talk:Viva la Vida/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nicely written article, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I'm not crazy about the genre being labelled "baroque pop" (I would just say "rock"), but I guess I can live with it
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
See below for areas that I think need more coverage and work
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
Still looks to be a lot of editing and some reversion on it
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good luck improving the article

(These review templates are a pain. Easier just to write here.) I like the article, but have these concerns/suggestions, in no particular order:

The lead section is too short. Summarize more of the article and, if possibly, capture the 'feel' of the song and its success, so that readers will be drawn in to see more.
The arrangement description should include more on the church bell use. It's one of the most visually distinctive part of their playing it, and is shown on the video (and which member is doing that?) On their SNL performance, the bells were hugely visible.
The "oooh's" layered vocal part near the end should be mentioned, as it's another key part of the song's hooks.
Aren't there some interpretations that focus more on the song's applicability to ordinary life, and not just to kings/revolutions/etc? Don't have a good reference for this right now, alas.
The SNL performance should be mentioned, as it's a very visible outlet in the U.S.
The article should discuss how they play the song live. From what I heard, they struggle to reproduce the layered, orchestral sound and overall "oomph", even though multiple backing tracks seem to be used.
Of the two plagiarism charges, the Satriani one appears to be the more serious, yet gets less space. Maybe mention the YouTube mashup that puts the two sections on top of each other? And also, be clearer on what part of the song is being accused. From what I heard, it was just the strings riff into 'For some reason I can't explain ...'
Footnote 12 isn't fully formatted, with publisher etc.
The publisher field in the footnotes is linked sometimes, not others. Should be consistent (I favor linking
The article doesn't quite get across the nature of the song, and why it's been such a big hit. Writing about music is hard! I won't hold up a GA for this, but see if you can spice it up a bit in this respect.

If you have questions or object to any of these comments, let me know here and we can discuss. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I formatted ref #12 with {{cite web}}. After doing a pretty thorough Google search, I don't really think that Coldplay's Saturday Night Live performance is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article; yes, SNL is a major show here in the USA, but it was kind of hard to find more than just a few reliable sources that mention the band's appearance on the show, much less highlighting on their performance of the song "Viva la Vida" alone. Jamie^☆S93 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Chart performance' comments

"'Viva la Vida' has become one of the band's most commercially successful songs." – We're all going to have different definitions of 'commercially successful', so it's better to replace with something objective like 'highest charting'.

Commercial is being understood in the music scene as well-downloaded, high-charting, etc. But I changed it per suggestion. Looks more specific. --Efe (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do we define "well-downloaded" and "high-charting"? See the problem? That's why we just stick to the numbers. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does reference [28] (the Katie Hasty Billboard article) support anything about the single?

Changed ref link. Now points to the proper source. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the song was initially successful in digital sales" – source? And what constitutes 'successful'?

Ref 28. "Successful" is supported by "Fueled by high digital sales" above. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have a source that provides the number of downloads. Use that number instead and let the reader decide for himself whether it qualifies as "successful". —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it went on to become the band's biggest radio hit in the United States" – biggest is POV. Highest charting?

Did some changes. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was also successful on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart, becoming their first number one on the chart" – POV. Why not just "It also became their first number one on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks chart"?

Fixed. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"beating previous songs 'Talk' and 'Speed of Sound'" - replace "beating" with "besting"

This line was removed as it became nonsense after revising the preceding clause. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"as well as the first single on the Capitol Records label to ever top the chart" – trivia

Not a trivia. Record labels do count on their number-ones. --Efe (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's relevant anywhere, it'd be at the Capitol Records article. As far as this song is concerned, the fact offers no insight and constitutes trivia. (The supporting reference is out of date, anyway.) —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The single was also successful in the United Kingdom." – drop this and reorder the paragraph. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Zeagler (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images

How do you know that Chris Martin is performing "Viva la Vida" in the first image?

Image removed as it failed to comply WP:NFCC #8. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the image to which I was referring. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The music video screencaps need beefed-up fair use rationales, as well as better captions that explain specifically what we are supposed to take away from them.
The music sample also needs a more specific caption, as the sample will do nothing to further my understanding that the song is built around a string arrangement. Try using a quote from a critic about the string arrangement instead; then the use of a sample is justified so that the reader can decide if the critic is on target.

The caption is enough and specific. Its a support of what readers are about to head from the sample. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not sufficient, especially for a fair use sample. See WP:CAP. —Zeagler (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Zeagler (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing. Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this nomination. It's been in hold status for a week, the usual waiting period, and there isn't any real momentum towards resolving all the issues raising above. The nominator of the article at WP:GAN, User:Matthew R Dunn, doesn't seem to have ever worked on this article, never a good sign. There's also still a fair amount of churn in the article. It can always be resubmitted another time. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]