Talk:Shadowland (The Lion King)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to review this, and for your comments!--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "musical The Lion King (1994)" Isn't the musical from 1997?
  • "English and African" As "African" is not a language, this sentence could use work.
  • I agree, revised to read "African languages".
  • "while both Lebo and Mancina collaborated" Don't need that "both" there.
  • "the production of Lebo had" -> "the production of which Lebo had"
  • "exiled from South Africa during apartheid.[12][2] " Refs go in numerical order
  • "University of South Florida's usforacle" Separate the Wikilinks, one for USF itself, and one for The Oracle (University of South Florida). Also, don't follow their "usforance" formatting that seems unofficial anyhow.
Got it, fixed. I had a feeling I just hadn't found the right name for the publication.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continue live under" Continue to live. This thing might need a copyedit.
  • "pride can relocate,[23][4] " Watch ref order.
  • "writing for The Houston Chronicle" Link all the newspapers.
  • "one of the more recent actresses to portray Nala on stage" You're intentionally inviting eventual out-of-date tags on this one, I'd rephrase.
  • "Additionally, the song helps ensure that the musical resonates with both younger and older audience members.[37]" I'd attribute this opinion explicitly.
  • "at a tempo 70 beats per minute" Tempo of
  • "that spans a duration of four minutes and twenty-eight seconds." Linked source says 4:30?
  • "African phrases" In which African languages?
  • The source doesn't specify, but I think it's okay though; by African phrase I'm pretty sure the author is simply referring to phrases that originate from the continent of in general Africa.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyrically, the song is about "losing [one's] home and finding solace elsewhere"" Who are you quoting here?
  • "Some critics and have identified the song as a hymn.[50]" Some critics being a wordpress blog? That source needs to go.
  • "Volume 4: Mezzo-Soprano/Belter Book Only." Book Only is not part of that book's real title, just a way it was sold without some other media.
  • "To promote the musical and the song, Headley "Shadowland" with Le Loka and the ensemble live on the Late Show with David Letterman in 1997" Missing a word here...
  • "equally beautiful Marja Harmon"" Who is Harmon?
  • "whose original recording is considered to be the "definitive"" Considered by whom?
  • "October 2014, Disney" Missing the word "in" here

Now to the refs:

  • Ref 1, the work/publisher is not "The Lion King"
  • You seem to rely in several places on student newspapers, these usually do not qualify as RS'es
  • Ref 19 strikes me as unreliable (Praise Hymn)
  • It's reliable, it's an official online music store owned by the Praise Hymn Music Group, in a similar vein as iTunes, Amazon, AllMusic., etc...--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 is just someone's blog.
  • Ref 25, a high school blog, really?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 31 also looks unreliable
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 33 again looks like a random blog
  • Ref 41?
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 50?
  • Website owned by a legitimate media and publishing company, Norton Writing and Marketing
  • A business that specializes in ghostwriting blogs and SEO. Still not seeing it. Courcelles (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49 doesn't strike me as reliable, it's not published by CalTech, it's just in some random person's userspace there.
  • Ref 52?
Removed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a significant amount of work to qualify as a GA. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haha to be honest the nomination was kind of rushed, I wasn't expecting it to get picked up so quickly. But I think I can have it fixed up in no time. Just a few minor typos, most of the issues are in the references.

Sources, again[edit]

Student papers: Ref numbers are from this version.

  • Ref 17.
  • I've removed the quote from the Reception section, but kept it as a source detailing the song's use in the show.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 18
  • Ref 27; the high-school blog is still here, I see.
  • Ref 40
  • Features a direct quote from one of the actresses who portrayed Nala in an interview/review with her alma mater. On a discretion basis, I think this reference can fly.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67
  • Ref 76
  • removed.

Questionable:

  • Ref 35, appears to be just a blog
  • Ref 15, seems to be some kind of affiliate mill
  • Ref 42
  • Yes, technically this source is a "blog" – but it is a blog by an official New York-based organization geared towards promoting the works of Asian Americans involved in the arts; I don't think it can be grouped into the same category as, say, an amateur home-based blog simply because its site manager is Wordpress.--Changedforbetter (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47
  • Ref 80 is fine reliability wise, but is not from a paper called "The Lion King"

Getting rid of the unreliable and marginal sources will allow you to focus the reception and impact section dramatically down to those critics who are either notable themselves or who write for notable publications, right now it feels like the kitchen sink approach was used, everything you could find was thrown in. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. If your primary concern is that the Reception section seems bloated, I've revised it to feature further paraphrasing and removed quotes that aren't really necessary in order to make the section seem more concise. As per the university-based student newspapers, I've yet to come across anything on Wikipedia that explicitly states that these sources should be avoided altogether or are entirely unreliable; the consensus seems to be that editors must use discretion. Sure, I wouldn't use them to cite cold hard facts about mathematics, biographies, history or politics, but in an article about a song in a stage musical whose facts are mostly based on opinion, as are most song articles, I think the four student papers that remain that mainly describe how the scene appears onstage aren't detrimental to the article's stability. Final verdict? Courcelles--Changedforbetter (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I’m happy now. I’ll do the paperwork when I get home to pass this. Just can’t do that kind of editing from a phone. Courcelles (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shadowland_(The_Lion_King)/GA1&oldid=824696540"