Talk:Santa Claus Lane

Disambiguation

This is hardly the most well known Santa Claus Lane, it should therefor not be the first one to come up when typed it, is should be found through a disambig or some such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressed – a disambiguation link to the Here Comes Santa Claus has been added. –Chase (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santa Claus Lane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Very short article, so a short GAN. While it was a small release and the first release of her career, there certainly has to be more than this. Is there no information anywhere on critical reception? I did find a couple smatterings of reviews somewhere, but they're all behind paywalls so I can't get a good synopsis of what the reviews had to say. If this article is to become GA (although it would make for a short GA), it would most likely need the assistance of someone with access to Google News archives and/or a print source or two. (Note that the Allmusic link doesn't count as a review, since it gives only a star rating and no actual text review.) The rest of the article looks mostly fine, although I did remove the phrasing of "charted poorly" regarding its #154 peak to avoid POV. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA comment

I disagree with the failing of the article's GAN and I have tried to discuss this with the reviewer, noting that GA criteria does not require the comprehensiveness a FA requires. The reviewer did not wish to discuss this matter with me further, and thus I will renominate this for GA. Just a note for the next reviewer. –Chase (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Santa Claus Lane/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written . Just a few issues - see below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Couple of issues, see below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As discussed at User talk:Belovedfreak, there are some issues. See below.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a note - while you reviewed this article, I had given this article an expansion/copyedit, so some of your comments are irrelevant now. Others have been addressed or I have left comments on them. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose

Lead

1. What genre is the album? This needs a mention in the lead. Maybe instead of "by American recording artist Hilary Duff", by American pop singer Hilary Duff, or any other way you like, but you need to specifiy the general genre. "Recording artist" covers a whole lot.

   Genres discussed in infobox and composition section; changed "recording artist" to "pop singer". –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) - that's fine. Remember the infobox is summarising what's in the article.

2. "the 154th position" -> No. 154 (with a non-breaking space).

   Why use "No." when it can be written out in full words and it means exactly the same thing? –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   Because it sounds more natural. I've never heard chart positions referred to in that way ("the 154th position"). It sounds strange to me.

   It was changed to "number 154" prior to your initial comments, will this work? I prefer using full words to "No." where possible. –Chase (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   Both are acceptable per the WP:MOS, so that's fine.--BelovedFreak 09:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Background and release

1. What year did she begin her acting career.

   Her acting career dates back to 1997, but she did not achieve her success (which ultimately led to the release of the album) until Lizzie McGuire in 2001, which has now been noted in the article. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2. "She expressed an interest..." - who did she express this to? If to no one in particular, how about She became interested

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

3. "After meeting her manager Andre Recke..." - this sentence is not entirely clear. Was he already her manager for acting that she ran in to? Was she meeting him for the first time? Did he become her manager and then she started taking vocal lessons? Or did he become her manager after she took the lessons? Also, as it stands, the "previously" in that sentence is not necessary.

   Reworded, with a different source that explains it better. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

4. "Duff's music career began with several soundtrack appearances." - You only mention two, not several.

   Changed to "two". –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

5. "In 2002, she had appeared on the soundtrack..." -> In 2002, she appeared on the soundtrack

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Soundtrack doesn't need a wikilink, it's a common enough word.

   It links to the specific soundtrack article: Lizzie McGuire (soundtrack). –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   I've modified the link slightly so it's clear what it's linking to.

7. "...performing the song "I Can't Wait"..." - a new song? A cover? Consider ...performing a cover version of Brooke McClymont's "I Can't Wait"...

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

8. "It was later reissued on October 14 of the following year..." - "later" is redundant to "reissued" and "following year".

   Removed "later". –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

9. "the 154th position" -> No. 154 (with a non-breaking space).

   See above. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style

References

1. Dates should be in Month Day, Year format to match the article

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Allmusic should not be in italics

   Automatically formatted as such by Template:Cite web, using extra wiki formatting could mess the ref up if certain changes are made to the template... –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   Actually, this can be overridden like this: work=</i>Allmusic<i>. ('' also works in place of the <i> tags.) Same for the Amazon citation.

   I'm aware of how to override it, but adding wiki formatting could screw the reference up if the cite web template is somehow changed for whatever reason. I'm of the opinion that if the template automatically italicizes the content in the work field, then it should be fine and no extra formatting is necessary. –Chase (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

   If you don't like the template, you also have the option of not using a template and writing it out manually. As it stands, it doesn't comply with the MoS.--BelovedFreak 13:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Only the first occurrence of Allmusic needs linking

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy & verifiability

Lead

1. "After beginning a successful acting career" - this could do with citing or editing. Who says she has had a successful acting career? (also - there's no mention of her acting success after the lead.)

   Added a source that explains the popularity of Lizzie McGuire and added such content to the background section; if more is needed, let me know. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Background and release

1. Direct quotes need a citation straight after: "They were all getting ready backstage and warming up, and I was like, 'I want to do this so bad.'"

   Done. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Coverage

As discussed, I don't feel that the article is broad enough as yet. I was surprised to read an article nominated for GA that has only 5 sources, and with prose that all fits onto my computer screen without scrolling. It needs some kind of reception information, some inkling of what the album was thought of. As you're working on it, I won't comment further than what I said at my talkpage for now, and see what you come up with.

I've added more references since you began the review; as I previously explained I have not been able to access reviews, but more content has been added since you began the review, such as content about the album's composition. –Chase (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's looking better, and I like the mentions of her collaborators. I'm not really happy with using Allmusic as a source for the moods & themes. It's not clear where these come from on the site and have always seemed a little arbitrary and uncritical to me. I'd rather that sentence wasn't there.

I appreciate the changes you've made but I still think it's a bit thin on the ground. As it stands right now, I can't pass it as having "broad coverage", due to the lac of any critical reviews. You have some time though, I'll put it on hold. Why don't you try asking at one of the relevant Wikiprojects to see if anyone has any magazines from the era that might have a review in? Some people keep all their back issues of a particular magazine, so you might get lucky. Also if you've identified a particular source that looks good, but is behind a pay wall, why don't you ask around & see if anyone has a subscription? --BelovedFreak 19:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... I really think you should look again at WP:GA?'s note that there is a significant difference between the GA criterion for broad coverage and the FA criterion for comprehensiveness. (Note that Beautiful Eyes is GA but has no critical reviews.) But nevertheless, I will try to see what is around but there's really not much critical info, and I don't think it should be failed on that alone. I am actually not aware of any paid websites that have reviews of this, the previous GA reviewer told me this but a Google search showed very little; only lyric and blog sites.

In the meantime, could you let me know if Amazon's editorial reviews are considered reliable? I'm not referring to customer reviews; I found one on the album's Amazon page. Also, I found this but I'm not sure how reliable it is... at this point, anything seems better than nothing... –Chase (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're just going to disagree on the interpretation of broad coverage! I notice that the example you gave me of another GA is one passed by you - so that's not really another opinion. That said, if you really can't come up with anything after 7 days (or sooner if you decide; and I hope you do try asking around) I will be happy to get a second opinion. I notice also, that the other article was on an EP, so I wouldn't expect as much coverage on that. Anyway...

That link doesn't look too reliable to me, it looks like an amateur site. Unless you can find some indication that Christopher Thelen is an expert in some way. As for Amazon - I'm not sure. I haven't heard of their reviews being used. The review is by Jaan Uhelszki, who looks pretty reliable herself. She's written for Rolling Stone, Mojo and others. So, I would say that's looking useable.

As for possible pay sites, there's the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Deseret News, Tampa Tribune, San Diego Union-Tribune... it's hard to tell exactly how much is said from google news (I presume you're using google news, not just the web search). Most seem to be overviews of Christmas albums in general. The San-Diego Tribune seems to have an actual review but it's just beyond the abstract.--BelovedFreak 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've just seen your changes. As I say, I'm not happy with the Daily Vault one, unless evidence appears to prove it's reliability. I think the other one's ok, but I think it should say it's a review by Jaan Uhelszki, rather than Amazon, although she doesn't have an article here, she seems to be pretty reliable.--BelovedFreak 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion would be appreciated. I don't think this article should be failed solely due to a lack of critical reviews. –Chase (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, I'd be happy to get one. Have you considered my suggestion of trying to find out if anyone else has any appropriate sources, either at an appropriate Wikiproject (albums, music) or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange? There's no hurry, remember, articles take time.--BelovedFreak 20:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments and I will check out the resource exchange and see what others can find. I'll get around to that sometime in the next few days; I'm on spring break about to head back home tomorrow and I need to start packing up. –Chase (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. As I said, there's no hurry. I'll also try to scour the web for anything more.--BelovedFreak 20:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been very busy this week with schoolwork and preparing for exams and such, and have not had as much time as I would like to use wiki and thoroughly look at the reviews I received from the wikiproject you told me about. I have not forgotten about this GAN. I'll begin finishing up the article hopefully tomorrow and should be finished by Saturday evening at the latest. –Chase (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look over the weekend.--BelovedFreak 12:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I've scanned a large PDF someone at the resource wikiproject prepared for me complete with a bunch of articles about the album. Unfortunately, most of these articles only provide passing mentions of the album, and ones that don't are merely brief overviews of 2002 and 2003's Christmas albums. The San-Diego Tribune article, after looking over it, was more than likely written by a child (tip-off: "My sisters, who are 5 and 7, both liked these songs") and thus cannot be used as it is not a professional review. This leaves the dubious Amazon review which I decided to remove because it doesn't seem like a reliable source to use for information other than release.

Could I ask now that you get a second opinion? I don't want this article to fail based on lack of critic reviews when there are really no professional ones available. –Chase (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pass/Fail

While I appreciate the changed you've made, I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria. I can understand that you want the article to be GA, but that's not a good enough reason to pass it. You are correct that "broad in coverage" requires less than the comprehensiveness of a Featured article, but it still needs to cover the "main aspects" of the topic. I think that this article still has too many gaps. Just because we haven't found any significant reviews, I find it hard to believe that there weren't any. I had a glance through some of the PDF you mentioned I also note that you seem to be unwilling to make changes to comply with the manual of style because you don't like the way the templates work. I have read the criteria again, and I've also read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Passing articles that do not meet the Good article criteria. Bottom line is: I don't think that this article meets the standards for GA, despite the work you've put into it. It's not a reflection on you, just the way it is. I did promise to get a second opinion before I fail it though, so I will do.--BelovedFreak 10:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what you mean by unwilling to make changes to comply with MOS? This comes off rather rude, especially since I have been as willing to add as much as I could into this article without crossing into WP:NOR... –Chase (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry I really didn't intend that to sound rude, or to insult you. I mean the comments above regarding the citation templates. You could easily write the citations out without the templates if you feel that strongly about it. The aim here should be to improve the article, not make a point about how you feel about how the template works. That's how I interpreted your responses above and I apologise if that's not the case.--BelovedFreak 11:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

I am ready to fail this article, mostly because I do not think that it is broad enough in coverage. I feel that it's not comparable with other album articles that are GA, and there are lots of gaps in the information provided; in the reception section as well as the background of writing/recording the music. As I promised Chasewc91 that I would ask for a second opinion, I would appreciate any other thoughts.--BelovedFreak 10:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How are there gaps in the background and writing/recording? You haven't brought these up, not to mention very little info is available. Without being rude, how do you expect a lot of information to be found on a largely-ignored Christmas album that didn't sell well? –Chase (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was focusing on the reception section as the biggest problem. If other sections were more developed, that might have offset the reception section's shortcomings. I do appreciate the changes made, but they are not enough to convince me that this article is GA standard. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for other opinions.--BelovedFreak 11:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should use the Jaan Uhelszki review. She seems to be very much a WP:RS: [1] [2] [3]. I would say her review is quite notable, based on her long and notable history in the music industry. I also found this review on Barnes and Noble. Unforunately, I can't find out much about their review policies, or about Beth Amos, the reviewer, herself. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, online sources are not supposed to be italicized as per WP:MOS. You can correct them. And Jaan Uhelszki review can definitely be added, but not the Barnes and Noble one as its WP:OR. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unitalicized refs as more than one editor has expressed concern over this, though I still believe adding extra markup to the refs is a bad idea. Will re-add the Jaan Uhelszki review, but that seems to be the only notable review available. –Chase (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion

The lead mentions well receiwed by critics, yet the recption sectuion conatins no review information. If there is no information out there, as per "You haven't brought these up, not to mention very little info is available. Without being rude, how do you expect a lot of information to be found on a largely-ignored Christmas album that didn't sell well?" If theer isn't any information out there then the album is not noatble enough to have its own artcilwe, certainly not a good artcile. Suggest merging into Hilary Duff. There is insufficient content here for a stand alone article, most of it is information about how she started singing. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the critical review section as most of it wasn't notable (will add back the Amazon review) and forgot to remove it from the lead. Not notable? Per WP:NALBUM, this article is notable as its subject is an album by a notable recording artist, though it is debatable that she may be more notable for her non-musical ventures. Regardless, Hilary Duff is too large an article to fit this in and adding a tracklisting to Hilary Duff discography would diminish the quality of the FL, would it not? –Chase (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Failed

Ok, thanks for the other opinions. I'm failing it now, as it doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time, specifically 3a. You've put in some good work Chasewc91, and I wish you luck with developing it further. If you still disagree with this result, I suggest you take it to GA review, as it looks like you've done about as much as you can with the article at this point. I think it's worth bearing in mind that some articles will never meet the standards for GA or FA simply because of the material available.--BelovedFreak 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

To quote Jezhotwells from the GAN: "If there is no information out there[…]then the album is not noatble enough to have its own artcile, certainly not a good article. Suggest merging into Hilary Duff. There is insufficient content here for a stand alone article, most of it is information about how she started singing." I agree with this statement and suggest that a merge would be better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is sufficient information for an article, and WP:NALBUM simply requires that the artist is notable. Hilary Duff is a notable musician, and either way her wiki article is too large to house this. –Chase (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by sufficient information: it's lacking in the reception department due to that info not being available, but all other major aspects are covered. This article includes information on its musical content, origins, release, and charting info. It's not like this is some two-sentence stub on a non-charting album by a non-notable artist. –Chase (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)