Talk:I Hope You Find It

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Hope You Find It/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bonnietylersave (talk · contribs) 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take on the review of this article. This is my first ever GA review, though I have had two articles listed as a Good Article last year (Believe in Me (Bonnie Tyler song) and Rocks and Honey), as well as two more articles currently nominated (Wings (Bonnie Tyler album) and If You Were a Woman (And I Was a Man)). I will be back soon to perform the review after a reading.

Other reviewers are welcome to help contribute.

I wish you the best of luck with this! Bonnietylersave 14:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• I think it would be a good idea to include more about Cher's cover of the song in the article lead. There is a quote from a music critic, though to read more about Cher's version I would have to scroll down to the relevant section. A short overview of Cher's version, including its success, would be a nice addition to the lead.
• Is there a single artwork for Miley Cyrus's version? If so, it would be ideal for that to be added to the infobox.

It is a song, not a single. Though, I found this fan-art online.--219.90.107.83 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry never mind then, I think I misunderstood. In that case, the infobox can be left how it is. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Critical Reception

• Are there any more reviews that could be added? This section seems slightly short, though will do if there are no more reviews to add.

Live performances and promotion

• It would be ideal to add reference links for Cher's live appearances on TV. Are there some reviews of her live performances (on TV) of the song? That might also be a nice touch to the article.

Track listings

• An iTunes link to the single as a reference beside the Digital single bullet point would be suitable since the CD single is also referenced.

References

• The references used in this article are inconsistent in date format. You can choose out of three formats: "2014-08-07", "7 August 2014" or "August 7, 2014".
• Some citations are desperately in need of re-formatting. References 7 and 8 need turning to, for example, ""
• Other references that need revisiting include 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31.
• The "gaon chart" needs re-linking as it appears to be dead. You may need to find another website that links to this, or remove the reference an information if it just isn't accessible anymore.

References example

First of all, thank you so much for agreeing to review this. Secondly, I've fixed all the references you pointed out. What else has to be added? CyrockingSmiler (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I have just neatened up two more references and will give the article another read soon. Nothing major jumps out at me as an issue. Bonnietylersave (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In my opinion, this article is adequate for GA classification. Well done! Bonnietylersave (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK Suggestions

I was thinking to nominate this article for the DYK page. Do you have any suggestions as to what the DYK fact should be? CyrockingSmiler (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@CyrockingSmiler: Maybe,

  Did you know, 

. ...that the song, I Hope You Find It by Miley Cyrus is about her character, Ronnie in the movie, The Last Song?

--219.90.101.140 (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you know, ...that Cher covered a Miley Cyrus song on her 2013 album Closer to the Truth? --Boris Karloff II. (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:I Hope You Find It/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Initiated by BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The original review, by a first-time reviewer, unfortunately missed important facets of some basic GA criteria. In particular, the MOS compliance and copyright criteria were not met. There are some minor prose issues as well, but that wouldn't normally be sufficient to call for a reassessment. While I wish this wasn't necessary, since the author and nominator CyrockingSmiler stopped editing on Wikipedia shortly after the article was listed and won't be around to work on the article now, given the issues and substantial work involved, I don't think the article is close enough to a Good Article to avoid a reassessment.

Basically, the structure of the article is badly off kilter, the prose isn't quite up to standard, not all sources are reliable, there's at least one copyright issue, and specific details appear to be inferred and therefore questionable or clearly wrong. The lead/introduction should be a summary of the whole article, but instead deals with the Cyrus version of the song. The Cyrus version is given short shrift compared to the Cher version—perhaps inevitable given how little attention the original release was given—which makes the article feel unbalanced. To be more specific:

• Prose: we have a number of categories here:

• clear and concise: the Live performances and promotion section is not clear: did she really do all those promotional performances the following day?), including tense and details? Also, a tour shouldn't be referred to as "current", but be described by its year and perhaps months.
• respects copyright laws: compare the second paragraph in the lead's "wishing her ex, Will (Liam Hemsworth's character), the best in a future relationship; while accepting it was nice while it lasted" with the source's "wishes the artist’s ex all the best in a future relationship, accepting that it was nice while it lasted". Probably a copyvio; certainly unacceptably close paraphrasing. And as bad: it introduces the unsupported claim that the song is there because it's Cyrus's character Ronnie wishing Will the best, which from my reading appears to be a highly dubious interpretation (aka WP:SYNTH). Given that it's an unreliable source (see "Verifiable" section), the whole should be deleted.
• spelling and grammar: some errors, such as "witing" and the misuse of "prominently"

• MoS compliance: this clearly does not comply with the lead sections guideline, in particular: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The article doesn't do that at all. Instead, the intro here talks in some detail about the original, Miley Cyrus version of the song: charting, lyrics, construction, and so on. The Cyrus version does not appear in the body, except for an extremely brief paragraph that barely touches on its critical reception, and that's from an unreliable source (see below). The Cher version is virtually ignored in the lead. Hence, the lead needs to be totally rewritten.

• Verifiable with no original research: since reliable sources are key to this, as is accurately reflecting what they say, I regret to say I've found issues with both. One I've corrected in the first paragraph of Live performances and promotion: the statement that Cher "closed the eighth week of Dancing with the Stars with a performance of the song" was wrong in its claim that it ended the show, and the sort of specific detail that should be in a source rather than guessed at (there was no source; I had to provide one with my rewrite). That first paragraph had no sourcing at all, which makes the claims of performances of the first seven shows—especially the timing, given the prose—questionable. The Maximum Pop site, used for a number of key facts (including the close paraphrasing mentioned elsewhere), appears to me to be a fan site—it's a WordPress blog, and talks about 339 email subscribers and has a "Follow me on Twitter" link—and not appropriate as a reliable source for any Wikipedia article. As already noted, it's also misinterpreted (see comment about unsupported claim above). The "Cher News" source is clearly not a reliable source: it's self-proclaimed as "one of the world's most popular Cher fansites".

• Broadness: while I'd like more detail on the Cyrus version of the song, I've been unable to find any: its only claim to notability was that it was on the soundtrack album (and according to one review, unfortunately on an unreliable site, seems to have been heard only briefly in the movie, and then during the closing credits?), and received enough downloads after the soundtrack was released to get that high on the "bubbling under" chart. It would have been appropriate to compare this charting directly to Cher's version, which didn't make the Hot 100 (was it bubbling under or not?). Still, as much Cyrus information as can reliably be found should appear in the body of the article.

Based on the above, I think it's clear that this article will need to be delisted unless quite a bit of work is done to it. I think allowing a week for work to begin is reasonable (much like a regular nomination being on hold for a week to allow noted issues to be worked on). —BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am really not interested in making any kind of contribution any more - I've stated before, the article seems biased and looks as a written comparison of both version, of course more inclined towards cirus. For example the sentence 'According to Jackie Willis of Entertainment Tonight, Cher showed Cyrus "the highest form of flattery" by covering her song, after going back on disparaging comments regarding Cyrus' controversial 2013 MTV Video Music Awards performance.[5]" is put in the intro part and seems as though it is 'legit', while the fact is that Cher had no idea who recorded the song first and has said so in an interview... The article should be written more profesionally and so that you can not see the inclanation of the editor towards any of the versions.—Uncleangelo (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

There have been no edits to the article and no disagreement here: the article does not meet Good Article standards. The reassessment is complete, and the decision is to delist is effective immediately. I have just now removed the problematic material listed above from the article. —BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: you should update its class. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Gabriel Yuji. I forgot that step. I'll be reverting to C-class, which is what it had before its original nomination; I don't believe it's at B-class yet, though there is a mechanism for formal review through at least one of the WikiProjects involved. Thanks for the reminder. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)