Hey friend, could you comment here?, Thanks Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, maybe you didn't read my last message, but can you please cross out the points you feel have been addressed? It makes it easier to navigate throughout the review and do what's still missing. Also, sorry I haven't gotten on this. I've had lots of homework. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. That makes sense. I think one of the major problems is how to make it clear that she wasn't on her Up! Tour, just performing three concerts before it began. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about disturbing you, but could you please tell me are The Oskosh West Index and the-trades reliable sources for songs? My love is love (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, The Oskosh West Index was the first site that appeared when I clicked on Google News archive. And when we're talking about the archive, I don't know why but every time I search something there I can find news just till 10th page. My love is love (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm looking for "Sweet Sacrifice" by Evanescence. My love is love (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I added those. But for ex. when I click on page 11 it returns me back to p. 10. Is the same happening with you? My love is love (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Thank you very much. My love is love (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Its on my watchlist. I'll visit the page right away. --Efe (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay I have crossed out resolved issues / concerns. I will be back perhaps tomorrow. You know that's huge. BTW, I don't know the existing policy now. Can I possibly use a template to hide (collapsible) those resolved? --Efe (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Peter, I have added my comments there. I might be able to respond during weekdays, but not on re-reviewing the article. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think Sandy's not going a run though the FACs so Mimi's not going anywhere until the following week, I think. My time's limited during weekdays, so I'll have to make this quick. Great improvement on the article. Cannot have a review, however, but I went to see it very very quick and here are my additional comments:
- There's a lot of random quotes in the music and lyrics section. Most of them pertains to individual songs actually. As emphasized in the FAC review, there has to be cohesion in the entire idea that is presented for that particular section.
- I was wondering if Mariah did improve her vocals in Mimi. Did critics noted that (in considerable coverage)? I was wondering if you could also emphasize that (perhaps along music and lyrics).
- Commercial performance. Perhaps you make another subsection for the album's commercial performance since you added the singles. But I am concerned about how that (singles) is presented. Its sort of a collection of info culled from each single's page and pasted unto that subsection. Since its under commercial performance, it is suggested that you revamp that to make it read like commercial performance. There's unnecessary details, too.
- That's all for now. Thanks for the patience, Nathan. Ciao! --Efe (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my concern about the section music and lyrics, take Love. Angel. Music. Baby. for example. If you want to keep those mentioning of almost all songs, try weeding out the unnecessary stuffs like random quotes. Also, like Love. Angel. Music. Baby., I would suggest you give an analysis (based on reliable sources) of Mimi's musical style, and perhaps her voice, to support the lead. --Efe (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I requested Sandy to transfer my comments (perhaps in toto) on the nom's talk page. That'll invite other reviewers to weigh in on their comments. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, based on the current standing of the article, I still Oppose. What is bothering me is how the article was organized. Well, there are pretty much information in the article, but then those ramdom quotes, at times non-existent cohesion, and what not are bothering me (well, personally and based on existing FA Criteria). Why I was asking Sandy to transfer those comments of mine was for the nom page to feel like inviting for other reviewers. Even if I crash my Oppose out, still there's no clear consensus. FAC takes more than one or two Supports. Besides, my review was grounded on the contents. There are so many aspects that reviewers look into. And nitpicking? That is very common in that area. While at work, I was actually thinking if my comments there have made the FAC (and for you) stressful (and perhaps frustrating). --Efe (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- So you don'w want to get those comments of mine transferred then? --Efe (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- One good example to take from: In Rainbows. --Efe (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment "They are meant to be solved in between you and me." I feel its going against the principle of Wikipedia. I actually don't believe in that. While FA reviews are meant to be resolved by and between the reviewer and the nominator, there have been many instances that better outcomes are generated by the participation of other reviewers. I don't mean like butting in like what I did here perhaps. So what would you like me to do? --Efe (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I actually reviewed the article intermittently. I feel most of my prose concerns (at least those stated) have been addressed, that is why I sort of having this "brash" comments. Anyway, I will do another review if not on Saturday, I promise it will be on Sunday. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am presently writing, having read 90% of the prose. In a while, I'll have my comments posted. Thanks Nathan. --Efe (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sort of. Having been born in the 90s, I grew up listening to pop songs that were very popular late into the 90s and early 20s. --Efe (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- There. Sorry I feel I still have to oppose. --Efe (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was born in 1990. I did like them and boybands such as Westlife and BSB were very popular in the Philippines. I also like Britney. Yeah. I will support in due time. --Efe (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Saw it. Taking a rest from Mimi. I'll get back to it maybe tonight. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe. Not quite familiar with their music. I listen to I think 5% of Philippine music. (shame) --Efe (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As you wish. I've started collecting material, as I said. You can work on LB :) Well, "SI" is a good choice (we can show the use of live band). We can merge the article today, but can you wait till my confirmation? I'll notify you within a few hours. As for the pics, no reply yet :( I asked for all the images of the uploader lol. Novice7 (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Towards the end, maybe some portion between showcasing her whispers and the belting? I can't really choose a definite time lol (maybe, where she sings "If you really need me baby...")? Novice7 (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also CB is done. I forgot to ask something before: Should we include "I Know What You Want" in the singles section? I mean, it was from Busta R's album, included on the re-release of CB. Is it needed? Novice7 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll send a mail to the owner asking for permission. However, I don't think he/she will allow to use it (see the "Request to license Streuth! ;-)'s photos via Getty Images" tag below (C) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED? I think he/she wants us to pay for the image.) Btw, you didn't reply to my IKWYW part :P And, thanks heaps for sending the scans :) Novice7 (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, a separate section for re-release would be awesome. We can include the information about IKWYW, Miss You, There Goes My Heart etc. Novice7 (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not so good in writing lol. I'll provide the sources, can you create the section? Pretty please :) Novice7 (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! :D I've posted the sources on the talk page of the sandbox. Also, yes, we need that too. I thought of creating a "Artwork and title" section but couldn't find many sources (esp. the artwork. I know it was shot in Capri though). Also, can you tell me which song she's singing here? I can't figure it out. Lastly, don't care about my comment on "BOTH"'s guitar solo etc. It's not possible, I just listened to the song again. Upload a portion you like :) Novice7 (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
YAY!!! It's finally live!! Amazing samples btw. I'm very proud of the article, what about you? However, I'm not so proud about the Development section :| I feel that there's no connection... I can see that you've already added the credits :) Also, the image above. Can you tell me the song? Novice7 (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, I can see a sofa and maybe you can use it in "TTR". The Flickr user has not sent any mail :( I'll try and find more sources for Re-release. Novice7 (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll post the sources within a few hours, maybe? It's 10 AM here and I have to go to temple, pray et cetera :) Novice7 (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, thank you so much :D You're one of my best friends on Wiki too ;) I'd love to work with you on other articles and yes, you need to push me sometimes :D Novice7 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- You take care too. Novice7 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources:
Novice7 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nathan. Finally, i watched the video. Can you do a screenshot 3:46 please? Jivesh • Talk2Me 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- The image is perfect. Thanks. Why did you remove this line: "A quick peek at the "IV" tattoo inked on Knowles' left ring finger is shown, before she bathes in a tub of flowers as well as berries and blows billows of smoke", especially the part i put in bold??? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you like it. I found it to be excessive and confusing detail. Its not something noteworthy. You have to list the important things, not every detail that happens in the video or it gets confusing. What do you think of the video?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nathan, in case you forgot, Beyonce's new album is called 4. did you get what i mean? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I do. I still don't think its worth mentioning, but honestly if you do, then by all means revert. I really don't mind. Its was just a thought.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok Nathan. I hope you are not angry. Actually, i think it should be added because in my opinion the tattoo is there on purpose. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's okay Jivesh, just emphasis that the tattoo is a reference to the album title.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Nathan. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! LovesMacs (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Done — Status {talkcontribs 03:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have the page watch-listed and have already left additional comments.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I'd like to say thank you for signing up for the GA review of The Drug in Me Is You. I was wondering if you are able to review it though because you are also signed up to review 14 other articles at the same time. Is this right or was this a mistake? GroundZ3R0 002 04:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
--GDuwenTell me! 17:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything has been addressed and changed or responded to as to why it wasn't changed. Only thing left to do is crop the producer image which i really don't feel like doing right now; you can pass the article and ill do it later, i had been meaning to anyways. Thanks for doing the review by the way. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Again, talkback, all GA requirement have been addressed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just commented back. As far as the introduction of how this concert was different from the Up! Tour, I thought the point was evident. Apparently not, where exactly is it confusing you the most? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Jivesh • Talk2Me 09:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Nathan. I understand that you are one of those select people around here who know the difference between the two and when (not) to use them as you find errors like these in FACs and GANs. I was wondering if you can quickly explain when to actually use {{Cite news}} as opposed to {{Cite web}}. I have been using the former for MTV News, Bilboard News, and Rolling Stone News for a while now, but I have a feeling that I might be wrong. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- See my talk page. And wow at that title. Did you see it on "1+1" revision history? Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, no I didn't. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Lol. It is the same. Jivesh • Talk2Me
- (butting in) I think both have different usage. --Efe (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes WP. They are very different. After reading what I wrote on Jivesh's page, know that those you listed (RS, BB) are cite web. Only newspapers (NYT, USA, Chicago-Sun Times, Newsday etc) use cite web.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
How are you buddy? Thanks for the advice in the Rehab peer review. I removed the picture, however can you read the synopsis and find suitable screenshot from it and uploaded for me, cause I really think the section needs a screenshot. Thanks & SY ! Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure Tommy. Give me some time and I'll get to it :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, take your time :). Greetings Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 19:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As per the title, I am here to complain about your reviewing of my nomination of Endgame for GA. Although I am new to the world of GA reviews, it was my understanding (based on looking at other discussions for GA reviews) that should problems arise in the review, that you, the reviewer, were to prepare a list of things to be improved and give the nominating party, me in this case, an opportunity to remedy those faults. I would like to request that either you retract your 'automatic fail' to allow me a chance to improve said article, or re-review to give me such chance to actually react to faults you find in the article in question.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say (nor infer) that the reviewer is supposed to rewrite the article in question. I was under the impression that the reviewer highlights a specific listing of problems to be fixed so that the article can be passed. I also encourage you to look at the review page, as I posted several issues there that I don't feel like retypinging here.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I did correct a few things, but again, I have mentioned what I believe to be a few errors on your part here--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Nathan! I think I have fixed everything you said on Kill the Lights take another look and tell me if there is something still. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nathan! You're such a good reviewer and wikipedian. Thanks again for being so amazing! :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I should point out that I am quite reluctant to voice my complaints in such a bold and up-front manor (even as I am typing this, I am hoping that you would render more useful assistance in improving Endgame), but I feel that you have marginalized me.
I must say that while I was understandably disappointed by the result of your review alone, I am even more irritated by the fact that you still have not even addressed my concerns about your reviewing of the article. You have said that:
- the prose is not strong - How is it not strong? I personally haven't found a great deal of issues with it, just a few here and there, although that is not to say that it could not be better.
- MoS violations...You specifically cited Billboard - Were you talking about in text (one instance only) or in the references? what other MoS-contradicting features are there?
- Unsourced content...you specifically cited the chart positions - You 100% were correct in pointing that out (and it has been fixed)
- To quote you: "The references are just in shambles. So many poorly formatted references and just plain unreliable ones; infowars.com, megahammer.com, roadrunners.com, everydayjoe.com" - What part of the format is poor exactly?
- You cite Infowars as a unreliable source...in the context that it is used in (Mustaine on the Alex Jones Show) it is perfectly reliable since it is Jones' website. I would think he would be a reliable source for his own show. Would I use infowars as a source for George W. Bush or Queen Elizabeth II being 7 1/2 foot tall lizard people or whatever? Probably not. But in the context that it IS used in it is perfectly suitable - I would think Jones should know who was on his own show.
- you claim that there is a source by the name of "Megahammer" There was none. Perhaps you were seeing "Metal Hammer" which is a heavy metal news magazine, and would be perfectly acceptable as a reference on a heavy metal-related article
- "Roadrunners.com" - You were right in that it was a typo (supposed to be "Roadrunnerrecords.com", the website for Megadeth's label), but not that its an unreliable source (fixed now)
- "everydayjoe.com" - re-reporting a story from Roadrunner Records' news website 'Blabbermouth.net' (since replaced w/ original source)
It seems to me that you didn't really look closely over the article, as I would expect a reviewer to not make such trivial mistakes, much less refuse to acknowledge them, and that is exactly what you have done - you have been condescending ("I'm sorry to say this, but all this shows is your lack of understanding of the GA criteria[...]"--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC) <--this for example could have been phrased more politely) and dismissive - you have simply refused to clearly address my concerns, and simply resorted to hiding behind the GA standards whenever I ask you to address my concerns.
Furthermore, you put words in my mouth: "I don't know here you got the idea that a GA reviewer is a copy-editor, who fixes all the issues."--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)(on my talk page) when I never said, nor inferred that the reviewer was supposed to rewrite the article; what I said was: "[...] it was my understanding (based on looking at other discussions for GA reviews) that should problems arise in the review, that you, the reviewer, were to prepare a list of things to be improved and give the nominating party, me in this case, an opportunity to remedy those faults."--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)(on your talk page)
You claim that you would gladly re-review the article with no wait when (more likely "if" now, since I am still not really sure of what all the things you were pointing out are) I get the article GA-worthy - however, you really offered no help in the interim, since you really aren't clear as to what needs to be done (how is the prose bad? MoS violations? what/where? so I can fix them. How are the references poorly formatted? I can't fix this stuff if you don't explain a little more clearly what exactly the problem is. Most of what you have pointed out is quite vague.
Ultimately, while I must again stress that I was displeased by the result of your review, I am most irritated by your condescending and dismissive attitude and what I believe to be a lack of attention to, and/or interest in the subject matter of the Endgame album's article.
I would also like to note that I am seriously considering putting the article up for reassessment - not that the immediate assessment result may be much different, but if it is, hopefully I can get some better feedback from another reviewer other than yourself on how to improve problems in the article.
Lastly, while I would greatly appreciate if you would grant me assistance so that I may improve the article, I expect otherwise. Quite frankly, I can't say I even expect you to read my complaint in its entirety.
Extremely disappointed in you, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
