Talk:Up Where We Belong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 12:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments some recurring themes, especially tone issues making some of it sound like fancruft or a tabloid review.

• "It reached record stores.." it would be more encyclopedic to just say that it was released in July to coincide with the film's release.
  • done
• "There were many temporary setbacks " this feels tautological to me, I would just remove "temporary" altogether.
  • done
• "The film's director didn't think Warnes" avoid contractions.
  • done
• Not sure one third of the lead should be all about the setbacks. The lead, per WP:LEAD is designed to give a broad summary of the whole article, this does not right now.
  • scaled back - summary expanded
• In fact, the tone of the second lead para is very colloquial indeed, not really encyclopedic at all.
  • scaled back
• "It also sold one million copies " probably "more than"
  • done
• "so this was a special moment." tone issues.
  • reworded
• " no money in the film's budget" -> "no remaining budget"
  • done
• "He forged ahead" tone.
  • done
• "Director Taylor Hackford was not budgeted for a ..." is that AmEng? I would say "... had not... " rather than "was not".
  • reworded
• "Among the half dozen songs" tone, six.
  • reworded
• " the Oscar-nominated" since you're using a colloquial term, link it.
  • done
• "of the movie brought " film.
  • done
• ""I wanted to have a song at the end of this film that would cap that romantic spirit. Jack Nitzsche and Buffy Saint-Marie, his then-wife, had written the theme for this, and I wanted a song based on that theme."[12] Nitzsche wanted" wanted ... wanted ... wanted... repetitive prose.
  • reworded
• The interpretation in the first para of the lead is not quite what the only sourced interpretation gives in the "Composition and lyrics" section...
  • changed
• "was a much tougher sell" tone.
  • removed
• "three weeks at number one during its 23 weeks " 3/23 or three/twenty-three per MOSNUM.
  • done
• Link "certification".
  • done
• " 250,000 copies. [23] " remove space before ref.
  • done
• "Their tune also" tune??
  • reworded
• " came in at " tone.
  • reworded
• General thinking: the article is predominantly quotes, probably too much really.
  • took out or reworded over a dozen quotes
• Weekly charts table is initially out of order (UK before U.S...)
  • removed periods from U.S. as other FA song pages have done
• Same for 1983 year-end chart.
  • see previous item
• Row and col scopes would be great per MOS:ACCESS in all these tables, so they are accessible to people viewing using screenreaders.
  • done
• Certification column would be better sorting silver-gold-platinum, rather than simply alphabetically.
  • I looked at a handful of other FA song pages, and they alphabetized by country. I think it's because, if you look, for example, at the three countries with Gold certification here, the totals in the Certified Units column are different for all three.
• Bebe & Cece -> BeBe & CeCe..
  • done
• In refs, " p. 152-153." (for example) should use pp. for multiple pages, and an en-dash, not a hyphen for a numerical range.
  • done

Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review, these comments are from a quick run-through, once we're through these, I can take another more detailed look. So, it's on hold for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time you're dedicating to this. I have started on some of your suggestions and should be able to get to all of them over the next few days. Danaphile (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed the items listed above and will be taking time off from 11/18 to 11/23. I appreciate having my work reviewed and look forward to additional suggestions. Danaphile (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

References

• Online refs should have either publication or accessdate (both is permitted), but not neither, e.g ref 1. Check throughout.
  • done
• No spaced hyphens per MOS:DASH. There's one in the main part of the article too.
  • I'm seeing two spaced hyphen changes made by The Rambling Man on 18 Nov. If there are others, let me know.
• Refs 62 & 63 are the same, so re-use!
  • done
• Ref 68, dash in year range.
  • done
• Ref 71 - CeCe, not Cece.
  • done
• You spell out entities like BPI but not RIAA, be consistent.
  • The only place I'm seeing "riaa" in the references is in 19 that refers to riaa.com. If there are others, let me know.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing this, and thanks for your edits to the article itself. I look forward to any further revisions I can make. Danaphile (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy with the updates and the article in general. Apologies for the delay, I have some off-wiki issues. In any case, I'm promoting to GA, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I appreciate your time and efforts with this process. Great working with you. Danaphile (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)