Talk:Songs from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying

Songs from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 15, 2025. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Songs from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Artmanha (talk · contribs) 01:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 08:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

I made a few copy-edits where the flow of information threw me off as a first-time reader. They were a little bolder than I sometimes do, so take a look and let me know if there are any you'd like to discuss. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig mostly turns up a million uses of the phrase "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" but there is also some close paraphrasing that should be addressed:
- He and Radcliffe have discussed the role and Jonas went backstage to congratulate Radcliffe after his final performance. Radcliffe returned the favor by showing up for one of Jonas’ first performances.[1] is used almost verbatim -- maybe condense this more and weave it into the chronology of the performance? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonas later closed the show by singing a jazzy rendition of “I Believe in You,” a signature song from the classic Frank Loesser musical.[2] was basically copied into the article word-for-word until my prose edits changed it for other reasons. My concern now is that it could be inaccurate to say he did "a jazz rendition" since that implies a different thing from a jazzy one -- take a moment to consider whether that performance was jazz, or whether it just had a jazz-like vibe. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly ok with the changes you made. The phrases are easier to understand the way you put them. So, on that regard, nothing to discuss. As per your other comments, I'll address them right now. Feel free to copy-edit if you think it could improve the article. Thank you — Artmanha (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! As per the jazzy / jazz phrase, I don't think it's wrong to state "jazz rendition", after all, the songs are mainly in the jazz genre. So, in my opinion, the way you wrote it is great. Please let me know if you want to discuss anything. For now, I'll wait for your next instructions. — Artmanha (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits, including giving that close-paraphrase a try. However, I think your new version still qualifies as close paraphrasing. Take a look at this diff to see how different I made the sentence structure -- the idea is to write something completely new that fits in to the article, just using the basic facts from the source. You might find the tips at WP:FIXCLOSEPARA useful in future. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For my source review, I will check cites 5, 6, 16, 17, and 29 as numbered in this diff. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues with cites 5, 6, or 16. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- For cite 17, it verified that Sher produced the original cast album with Daniel Radcliffe, but didn't verify that Sher produced Jonas's EP. The next sentence did have a citation for that info, though, so I fixed that (and also took out some kinda WP:PEACOCK info on Sher's Grammys, since they will also be discussed on his page). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite 29, Woman Around Town, looks like a non-RS blog to me (in addition to being a dead link). The other source cited for it looks OK per WP:ABOUTSELF so I removed this ref and left that one to support it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image check: both images are copyrighted, with thorough non-free-use rationales. The cover image is unambiguously an appropriate fair use. I think the rationale is also persuasive on the second one. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While doing these other checks, I realised that the "Background and development" is actually not strictly chronological, since he released the EP while still performing in the show, not after the show closed. Since I was misled by that organization, can you revisit this section to put everything in full chronological order? I think that will help a lot with the clarity of the prose. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the changes you requested. Let me know if there's anything you'd like me to change or discuss. Again, thank you for reviewing this article and I'll sure be following your tips for further editing. - Artmanha (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the new version looks good! I think all the GA criteria have now been met. Good work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.