Talk:Broken (Lifehouse song)
![]() | Broken (Lifehouse 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Usage in the media
[edit]Part of the song was edited to create the lyric 'I may have lost my way home'.
Can we get a citation on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.100.122 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Broken (Lifehouse song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Will begin shortly.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Info box
- Who produced the song? (List under Writer).
- Lead info
- "fourth studio album, Who We Are." → Put (2007) are Who We Are.
Not done What do you mean by this? Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- You should put the year the album was released in brackets the first time you mention the album, like this. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- "its instrumental use" → Re-word. "the use of instrumental in the song". Can you expand on this a bit, seems a bit short.
- Background and release
- ""Broken" was first released with the band's fourth studio album, Who We Are, on June 18, 2007.[4]" → This reads a bit awkward, the order of the words.
Not done How so? Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Broken was released as the lead single from the album on June 18, 2007. (You've already said the album name in the previous lines). Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- Composition and critical reception
These sections are quite small, so I recommend this:
- Re-name the first section "Background, release and composition". Put the Composition info into the section above and put the two reviews of the song at the end of the paragraph. So you know what I mean, look here for an idea on how to structure it. This way, the section looks a lot stronger and informational than having to weak and short looking sections.
- Also, when talking about a review, it is better to start like this: "Alex Lai of Contactmusic.com described the song.....". Do this for both reviews given.
- Why is slow in quotation marks? Doesn't need to be.
- Chart performance
- Put "US" before Billboard Hot 100. People might not know which chart the country is for.
- "It moved around for several weeks" → "It fluctuated on the chart for several weeks, before reaching its peak of eighty-three".
- "The song debuted at number seventy on the Billboard Digital Songs chart.[12] It peaked at number thirty-eight after being on the chart for three non-consecutive weeks.[14]" → Don't put a full stop after [12], keep the flow going because it makes it labouring to read, you are still talking about the same thing, so use a comma (,).
- And same again for this " On the Billboard Adult Pop Songs chart, the song debuted at number thiry-eight for the week of August 2, 2008.[12] After moving around the chart for thirty-two consecutive weeks, the song eventually peaked at number seven.[15]"
- Television appearances
First, it should be Live performances, secondly, this is not notable enough to warrant it's own section as it is too small, and thirdly, I want to you make these changes:
- Re-name the Music video title to Promotion.
- Create a subsection that says Music Video (using three '=' either side instead of two '=' either side).
- Remove the titles Background and Synopsis, but keep as two separate paragraphs.
- Then, create another sub-section that says Live performances, and put that info here. The remove the previous Television performances section.
- (Can you not find any more info about the Live performances? Just to pad it out a bit.
Done I researched all the live performances I could find. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
This way, the is more structure in the article and no weak or awkward sections.
- Credits and personal
- You should really write a line saying something along the lines of "Credits adapted from Allmusic.com" or something like this.
- Charts
- No issues.
- References
- I will give an example of how your references should be formatted: cite web/news (depending on which) last=(Surname, if there is one) first=(First name, if there is one) url= title= work= publisher= date=(If available, usually is) accessdate=. I'm saying this because quite a lot of your references don't include a work parameter.
- Also, Billboard references should look like this (you will have to click edit on this page to see properly): work=Billboard publisher=Prometheus Global Media. Plus, you only need to link the first instance, not every single solitary one.
- And Apple Inc references should look like this: work=iTunes Store publisher=Apple Inc.
Not done The "work=" parameter italicizes works and is only used for print sources, such as a newspaper or magazine. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- No problematic links.
- I've been told to italicise iTunes in the past, so I'm just passing that onto you, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
- I've been told that the "work=" parameter should only be used if the source is a print source. Since iTunes Store is not a print source, I do not use the parameter here. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've been told to italicise iTunes in the past, so I'm just passing that onto you, but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
Not a bad effort, there is some re-organising to be done and you need to sort out the references. On hold for 7 days. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have addressed all of the issues, except three that are listed above. Rp0211 (talk2me) 17:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to those three. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have now responded to all of the issues. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Passed :) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have now responded to all of the issues. Rp0211 (talk2me) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to those three. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)