# Talk:Who Really Cares (Featuring the Sound of Insanity)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs a little work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Release - Music video section, "in contrast to the studio recorded radio edit released as a digital single", what does that mean? "The music video is directly the performance featured on the DVD for the Across the Great Divide tour...", wouldn't it be best to re-write the sentence to "The music video comes directly from the featured performance of the Across the Great Divide tour DVD". If not, then it was a suggestion pitch. Is "Glasgow" a recording label? If not, what exactly is it linking to? New section, Critical responses, shouldn't "TheScene.com.au", "CitySearch Sydney" and "Fastlouder" be italicized? Can a little more information be added to the Track listing section? If not, I will not make it a big deal to the review.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Wouldn't YouTube violate source policy, per here?
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 
Does Reference 6 cover all the info. about the music video? In the charts section, "The song's critical response has been mostly positive, though so too were the two prior singles from Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, which both performed poorly in the charts" and "Like these two, "Who Really Cares" was released to radioplay and music video stations, but with little inclusion in circulation, leading speculators to believe the single will follow "I Don't Remember" and "Nobody Sees" with poor charting performance", need a source to back that up.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Without going into OR, there's not a lot more that can be said of the track listing, because nobody's reviewed the single as a single, nor the music video. As to YouTube, it can be used as a source, if it's an officially released video, and the purpose of using YouTube is to link to the actual video, not a collection of arbitrary information. I'll see if I can address all of your concerns asap. I think I'll need the full week though. I'm pretty busy. --rm 'w avu 14:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's alright, if info. can't be brought about the song, then that's fine. As for the YouTube stuff, I was asking it if violates policy or not. The full week it is. Good luck with the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Responses to prose stuff.

I removed the first phrase you quoted; it's not relevant to the video.
2nd quote reworded.
Glasgow is a location, removed as not really adding much.
Put a new section in.
No, no italics as they're not magazines/newspapers, they're websites (see WP:ITALICS).
That's all the track listing there is...:)
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats to everyone. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Who Really Cares (Featuring the Sound of Insanity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090915002056/http://www.powderfinger.com/12all/index.php?action=archive to http://www.powderfinger.com/12all/index.php?action=archive&mode=view&mi=16&nl=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)