# Talk:Evermore (song)

@Changedforbetter: Wonderful work with this article! I was just wondering do you that this article would be benefit from the inclusion of an infobox? I know that an infobox is not always the right answer for every article, but I was just curious about it after reading through the article. I apologize for the intrusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Haha thanks! Yeah I noticed this song has been getting quite a bit of press even since before the movie came out so I figured it deserved its own article. And yeah totally, I had full intentions of actually adding two infoboxes to this article (one for Dan's version and the other for Groban's), just haven't found the time do so so since I've been focusing on other aspects of the article first. But feel free to go ahead with adding one if you feel so inclined, no intrusion at all :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for your response. It is good to wait until you have finished with the content of the article itself before doing infoboxes. Good luck with the rest of the article. It is already shaping up to be a great article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The top infobox looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! And yes I decided to add one for Groban as well since it's a single release.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense to me! You have done a lot of amazing work on this. I can see this being put up for GAN in the future. You actually inspire me to work on Disney-related stuff in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you think so! Yes I plan on getting it GA-nominated by next week at the earliest, that's the goal at least. And aw that's sweet :) you could say working on Disney articles is my passion kind of; there are definitely loooaddsss of them that need improving, you're more than welcome to tackle any one you'd like whenever you're ready. And I can easily say that your articles on television shows and characters are an inspiration to me too, of course.--Changedforbetter (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you; that is very sweet! Good luck with your future work! Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Just chipping in to add, really excellent work on the article. I thought I'd look after seeing the movie if there was anymore information and was impressed! I made a minor deletion, i thought I was having deja vu when I read the exact same paragraph in both the lead and then first sectionMark E (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mark E: Thanks! Yeah I caught your edit and you're totally right, it was sounding a little redundant. Thanks for your changes :-)--Changedforbetter (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has various guidelines telling us the lead should summarize the body of the article. Wikipedia has a policy telling us not to combine material from multiple sources to say something that no one source says.
Tell someone the plot of the film in several sentences. Congratulations, you have just summarized the plot without synthesis. Tell them Jane Doe from OMGFilm loved it. Right or wrong, you have just summarized her opinion without synthesis. 
Tell someone that critics loved the film -- after all, you've read every critical review written everywhere, right? -- and you have summarized their opinions. You have also just synthesized new material. You took information from multiple sources (the individual reviews) and combined that information to say something new that no one source individually says: Critics loved the film.
Human beings hate ambiguity. Tell someone that some critics loved the film, some liked it, some thought it was OK, some didn't like it and some hated it and nine times out of ten, the other person will say, "Yeah, but did they mostly like it or not?" As a result, it is tempting to decide that one possible interpretation of a guideline overrides the clear meaning of a policy. This is a mistake. It's possible to find other articles that do the same thing, decide that they are right and follow their lead ("But officer, everyone is driving that fast. I was just keeping up with traffic!").
At the moment, Wikipedia says, "with both film and music critics dubbing it the best of the remake's three original songs amidst heavy comparisons to its precedent "If I Can't Love Her". Critics frequently recognized Stevens among the cast's best vocalists and agreed that "Evermore" is a strong contender for an Academy Award for a Best Original Song nomination at the 90th Academy Awards, however it was not nominated for the category."
With "both film and music critics dubbing it the best of the remake's three original songs"? Some clearly did. Some sort of, kind of, almost said something like that. Others said nothing of the kind. Still other said nothing at all about this song. With something longer -- and album, film, TV show, novel or whatever -- people often seek out reviews before investing one to several hours of their time to it. As a result, individual reviews for longer works are quite common. Articles dedicated to reviewing the latest Taylor Swift album are twelve for ten cents at the moment. People want to know, "Is this $10 hour of music worth my time and money or is it just a couple of singles and a bunch of filler?" Looking for reviews of the lead single and you need to dig a bit deeper. Yes, there are blurbs popping up in the daily press and on blogs talking about it the moment it came out from an OMG-have-you-heard-it-yet perspective. It's the first song from the (then) forthcoming TAYLOR SWIFT(tm) album. Most songs, like this one, don't get that at all. Even that valuable addition to human culture merited those stories for a couple of days. A magazine coming out a couple of weeks later would seem stale to run an article on the one song. Reflecting this, there are no review aggregators covering individual songs.
For an album, you can cite review aggregators. Metacritic looks at a fairly broad sample of Western, mainstream music critics and will tell you what the general consensus of those critics is. With proper attribution, you can certainly say what the score signifies, according to Metacritic. A 100 there would mean that Metacritic's sample of critics liked it. Perhaps critics in Latin America hated it. May be the alternative press hated it. I don't know. Metacritic doesn't know either.
For this song, we know what a handful of critics said. Is it a representative sample? I don't know. You don't know. Is the selection here representative of the worldwide pool of critics or is it a few critics selected by Disney fans who came to an article on one song in a movie to rave about how wonderful the song is? I don't know.
Most music critics said absolutely nothing about this song. A number of very prominent film critics did not review the film or did not discuss the "new" songs vs. the old. And yet, we've just put words in their mouths. Maybe the critics who didn't say anything LOVED it but didn't see that as part of their beat. Maybe they hated it. Maybe they thought it was middling filler.
We don't know what "critics" thought of this song. Yes, we know what a number of critics thought. I hesitate to say that those critics are the body of critics readers would think "critics" represents, much as I would not say what "Americans" think based on statements from five or a dozen people. 
"Critics frequently"? No. They do not. Some of the ones we have here did. They agreed it was a strong contender? Gosh, the critics who nominate didn't! "Critics" did not. A few that we cite did.
Rather than following an interpretation of a guideline to say something that may or may not be accurate, I suggest we follow the policy and verifiably report what the sources actually said. (Incidentally, if two critics say slightly different things, saying the second "agreed", then giving their different statement is bad form. Say what they said. Don't ignore the differences and assume the statements are the same.[1]) - SummerPhDv2.0 13:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

<crickets chirping>
While the discussion here has been very enlightening (I now fully appreciate that I am "ridiculous" and that WP:SYN is a matter of preference), I'd like to suggest that perhaps the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It's not just my opinion, it's policy.
If you have a reliable source for each of these ideas[2], please cite them.
If you feel an existing source supports one of these ideas, please provide a quote from that source which explicitly states it.
If you feel that these ideas do not need to be explicitly stated by any of the sources, you will need to explain why. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: Information in the lead does not need to cited as long as the information is included and sourced in the body of the article. Please reference the "Citations" section in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Here is a part that is relevant to this discussion (Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.). The matter of WP:SYN is a matter of preference to a degree. I would suggest you look through this Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Also, just to be completely honest, I do not feel that this discussion was opened with the best intentions or approach. Starting with a wall of text is not the best way to start a dialogue and adding sarcastic bits like "<crickets chirping>" and "While the discussion here has been very enlightening" does not help your cause. While this discussion can be fruitful and insightful to everyone involved, this comes across as a little more disruptive than particularly helpful in my opinion. I have removed the citations required tags from the lead, and put this comment up as an explanation for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I am aware that text in the lead typically is not sourced. In the present case, the text is not summarizing the major points of the article text, it is synthesizing new material.
We do not have sources directly stating that reviews have been "mostly positive" or "largely positive". In the body, "'Evermore' has garnered mostly positive reviews from both film and music critics, establishing itself as an audience favorite." is backedup by a source whose only comment on the song is "...with his new song “Evermore” a fan favorite of the musical additions." I removed "mostly positive" as synthesis. The other editor restored it, calling it "common practice". I tried discussion. Their "discussion" is an edit summary saying "I've seen your comment on talk, and I disagree."
The story is similar for the rest. Someone read some reviews, decided they were a representative sample and decided to combine them to say some new things. One critic said A. Another critics said B. In some cases, we're told the first critic said A and the second agreed. In other cases, it becomes "critics" said C.
Certainty is nice. False certainty is a cop out. Most critics said nothing whatsoever about this song. There are no review aggregators for songs. Our desire to have one does not mean we should become one.
You are fully entitled to critique my approach and find fault with it. That said, the curt "I disagree." followed by a month of silence, then dismissing me as "being ridiculous" with still no discussion hardly seems to be the gold standard. - SummerPhDv2.0 23:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@SummerPhDv2.0: Thank you for the reply. If you read my comment in full, I said that I did not feel that such comments were appropriate in the spirit of collaboration and discussion. I never dismissed you or called you ridiculous as you have put it and I do not appreciate such accusations. I have also provided you very clearly with my opinion/stance on this matter so I find this comment "with still no discussion hardly seems to be the gold standard" rather dismissive of my message and the fact that I chose to try and help with this discussion. Due to your attitude, I will end my conversation here as I do not see this leading anywhere beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I was not clearer. I am not accusing you of anything. The other editor's only comment on my attempt to discuss was the edit summary: "I've seen your comment on talk, and I disagree."[3] They ignored my in-line requests for a month. When I then removed it as unsourced, their response was "it's sourced, just not the way you'd LIKE it to be sourced. You're being ridiculous."[4] Their input thus far is: they disagree, I'm being ridiculous.
I'll take this slowly. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for your response, and I apologize if I was rude in my response. Just so I am clear, I do respect your opinion and I understand where you are coming from. We may have a slight difference in opinion, but it is a good discussion to have. Hope you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

In the body, we have the claim "'Evermore' has garnered mostly positive reviews from both film and music critics, establishing itself as an audience favorite.", sourced to "Screen Rant"[5] I'm not sure how reliable that source is. The number of superlatives on their "about" page (along with the typos) has a contrary effect.[6] ("one of the largest and most-respected", creaming the number of page views, "unique insight that engages everyone", "the ultimate geek entertainment destination", "the most influential", etc.)
In any case, the source says only, "...with his new song “Evermore” a fan favorite of the musical additions."
I am adding a cite needed for the first half. It is unsupported. If there is no discussion and no one (including me) finds a source, I'll yank it after a week or so.
I am adjusting the wording in the second half to better reflect the source. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I do find it a little strange that the general note that ""Evermore" has garnered mostly positive reviews from both film and music critics," cannot be taken from the greater context of the paragraph as a whole. Maybe it is the "mostly positive reviews" part that is throwing it off. I understand your point, but the fact that the paragraph contains sourced material of positive reviews seems to support a general topic sentence that this received positive reviews. It makes me wonder if the statement falls under this policy (Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). It is not claiming that all critics had a positive response to this song (which is a claim that can never be fully supported), but I would argue that the claim that the song received a positive response is supported by the rest of the citations in the paragraph. I hope that makes sense as I have a tendency to ramble quite a bit lol. I know that this is a rather divisive issue when it comes to implementing WP:SYNTH so I understand both sides of the coin. This is just my opinion on the matter. This is an interesting and worthwhile discussion and hopefully this can lead to something constructive either way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
If necessary, the positive review citations can be grouped together in a single citation for that particular sentence with a note about how they are the positive reviews or something along those lines. Just trying to think of a good compromise for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We've resolved the "an audience favorite" reach with the more down-to-earth "a fan favorite of the musical additions", though the source is still questionable. Let's see those "largely positive"[7] or "mostly positive"[8] reviews of the song.
The sources are hardly reviews and don't say much.
A review "commends the 'audacious' placement"? No, a general entertainment reporter[9] says the new songs are "cheesy" and says it's "amazingly audacious...to put another song directly after...the most famous song in the movie". Not a commendation, just her observation that it's gutsy.
A reviewer "appreciated 'Evermore' for both 'enhanc[ing] the story' and allowing the Beast to sing"? No, the source[10] says fans may not be happy that songs were added, but, "but both Days in the Sun and Evermore, enhance the story and allow the Beast a bit more voice in proceedings."
It's a "lovely addition to the story"? Yes, but does that "agree" with the second source? "Enhancing" a story may or may not be "lovely".
Our article punches up the positive of the isolated sentences mentioning the songs to fit an overall "gosh this song is swell" idea. The sources, though, seem to have other things in mind: does the song help the story, does it fleshes out a character, it "really brought an arc to the character". What's missing is "this song has a great beat and you can dance to it; it's the best single since last year's 'Get Your Boogey on the Dance Floor and Shake It'". Calling this kind of thing largely positive/mostly positive/positive reviews is off the mark in that they really can't be called reviews of the song. They're just saying it fits the movie, it helps humanize Beast or strengthens a dramatic arc.
Thisthis source says it is "the only other song that matches the grandeur of the classic Disney works". That sure sounds "positive", right? The reviewer has good things to say about the cover version released as a single, but we've been talking about the film version which "is less pleasing to the ear...still inferior to Groban’s version...it comes across as cheesy..."
We are told that harsh assessment "agrees" with "the only standout among the film’s forgettable trio of new songs". It does not. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Would it be better than if the topic sentence is changed to something along the lines of what you stated above (i.e. "They're just saying it fits the movie, it helps humanize Beast or strengthens a dramatic arc.") while having the rest of the paragraph stand as support. The problem may lay with the actual structure of the paragraph rather than the sourcing if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Dan Stevens (32493693323) (cropped).jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)