# Talk:Reality Killed the Video Star

Didn't have much time to consider reversing my delete vote, but in light of the significant growth and improvement, I would have done so. Nice work at saving the article properly. ThuranX (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I requested the AFD close that soon then, I figured you will not be online for a while. Glad to see you are expressing consent with the withdrawal though. Regards SoWhy 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody add this information to the section "Release and promotion"? I'd do it by myself but I'm not a native and my written English is not good enough for that. Thank you. 83.45.124.24 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Peak #11 http://argentinatop100.com.ar/top20albumes/2009/2211-2811/ -> CAPIF's Top 20 archived by ArgentinaTop100.com.ar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HC 5555 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC) 

PopMatters is used on may Wikipedia pages!! see Wikipedia:Albums at the review section and PLEASE STOP DELETING THEM!! (MariAna Mimi 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

It does not matter if you have seen Popmatters used as a review on other Wiki articles. They do not always use reviews from qualified, professional reviewers and are therefore inappropriate for inclusion. The Independent newspaper is a far better source for a review in comparison as it is a leading British newspaper and part of the mainstream press. 80.47.35.172 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Here :Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites you can find a list of PREFERED PROFESSIONAL MUSIC REVIEW SITES!! as you will wee PopMatters is listed as one of them! The review itself is more complex and talks about many aspects of the album, compared to the Independent! PLEASE STOP you are NOT helping the page at all! you are not adding info, or expanding it! you are just fixated on 1 idea! (MariAna Mimi 09:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
That is not a "preferred" list, it is simply an acceptable list, and PopMatters should no longer be on it because they do not always get their reviews from professional journalists (check their own "About" page and their own Wikipedia article). However, the fact is you have AGAIN removed a review from a leading and reputable British newspaper so that you could put the PopMatters review in its place. You were doing this 2 weeks ago and you were blocked for it and the page was protected for 2 weeks. As soon as the page gets unprotected, you're up to your old tricks again. It is quite clear you haven't learned your lesson at all. 80.47.73.66 (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You're not the one to talk!! The only thing you do is delete reviews!!! DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE PAGE IN ANY USEFUL WAY??? NO!! YOU DID NOT!! other people think that PopMatters is a reliable source that's why it was added on the review list of websites, if U think otherwise tell them to remove it! I would gladly stop reverting edits if you would STOP VANDALIZING THE PAGE!! (MariAna Mimi 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
Your attitude is appalling. Please kindly stop using capitals when messaging as this is considered rude to other users. You have also reverted/removed The Independent review 4 times now in the past 24 hours and you have been reported for edit warring. Again. 80.47.126.49 (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with the PopMatters review being included. I can see no reason to remove The Independent review. MariAna Mimi: would you be so kind as to explain your objection to including The Independent review? Bondegezou (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, to possibly answer my own question, I see that infoboxes are meant to have no more than 10 reviews linked. Of the current 12, I would have thought that the ones with the widest circulation were The Times, The Independent, The Guardian, The Observer and the Los Angeles Times. I would have thought the next most significant ones in terms of their standing were Billboard, Entertainment Weekly, NME and, perhaps, Spin. The remaining three (The A.V. Club, PopMatters and Slant), I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them, but as online-only and less established sources, they would seem less significant than the others. Is there any guidance on choosing in a situation like this? If not, I would have thought, given the reasoning above and the principles of WP:NPOV, that we drop two of The A.V. Club, PopMatters and Slant. I'll take no action now and wait others' comments. Bondegezou (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: Note that WP:ALBUM/REVSIT is not an exclusive list. That something is not listed there does not mean it is not to be used. Bondegezou (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The AV Club, EW, Spin, Billboard, NME, are all music/media magazines, I wanted to add Popmatters because the reviewer speaks about all the songs on the album, the review is very extensive. The Independent and The Observer both gave the album a 3 star rating, The Observer is the bigger newspaper , i just can't understand why people feel the need to continue adding it!We should have both positive as well as negative reviews, both from the US as well as from the UK! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. What about this: we drop Slant (minor, web-only) and Spin (smallest circulation of the other print sources)? That gets us to 10, preserves a mix of good and bad reviews, and still has a mix of US and UK? Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I still believe that Spin should be kept, if necessary we could add them to the external links maybe?? how about that? MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. They can be used in the article, they can be links, sure, let's not lose them entirely. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that the Allmusic review should be kept since Allmusic is probably the biggiest source for album reviews and can be found on allmost every Wikipedia album page. You can find the written review on their site, they did not rate the album in stars yet, but i guess that they will do it soon that's why I added Allmusic to the review box. I will add it when they do, if not i will add it with "positive" or "negative". Please don't delete it. thanx. :-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
For the IP adress(es) who keep adding The Independent, you can add the review at the review section, but not in the review infobox because there are too many reviews!! also if you add it at the review section use a reference for it!! thank U! MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Too late, MariAna. You have been repeatedly warned about edit-warring on this article (and even been blocked twice this month alone as well as being told you cannot use the revert function for a month) and here you are doing it again. You reverted before you discussed on the talk page, and you will be reported and blocked yet again. 80.47.9.124 (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
80.47.9.124, perhaps it would help if you discussed some of your changes here first as well. We should all be able to move towards a consensus without edit-warring. Bondegezou (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The changes were once again surrounding reviews, which have been discussed at great length above. Despite discussion, MariAna Mimi has yet again removed The Independent newspaper review despite it being a highly respectable UK newspaper. And why? For no good reason other than she doesn't want it in the article which she seems to think she owns. Trying to discuss anything with this individual is a complete waste of time because she never takes any notice. She has been warned by various editors, including several admins, but all to no avail. People do not own articles - end of story. 80.47.90.92 (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I recommend all involved parties consider WP:AGF, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. I also recommend WP:WHY (the benefits of creating an account over editing anonymously) to 80.47.9.124. Some of the discussion above demonstrates what civility can achieve: it was useful and helped move us towards a consensus. So perhaps everyone can step back from their entrenched positions and leave aside past disputes. Bondegezou (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the review from The Independent after it was inappropriately deleted again. The reviews table is no longer required to go into the article infobox, and therefore there is no longer a restriction on how many reviews can go in it. Including all respected, mainstream publication reviews in the table is beneficial to readers who may want a quick analysis of an album's critical reception but may not want to read the entire section dedicated to reviews. As discussed before, The Independent is a highly respected British broadsheet newspaper, and its inclusion is far more warranted than some of the other reviews in the section. 80.47.81.18 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sales totals for the UK as the sources were either out of date (Billboard) or inappropriate (an online fan forum). Furthermore, even though I know the album has certainly sold more than 300,000 copies in the UK, it has not yet actually been certified as Platinum. Certifications in the UK are not automatic and record companies have to pay for them before they are made. The BPI has no listing for the album as yet so listing the certification in the article is a little premature. 80.47.165.203 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, any sales figures that are added to the page without a valid source will be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.172.46 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: The BPI certified the album (double platinum) on 4 Jan 2010. However, please do not change this detail unless the BPI award further certifications themselves - regardless of any sales figures reported elsewhere. Thank you. 80.47.68.54 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Full performing, writing and production credits available here, including some corrections to what's currently in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you can find the official sales numbers & certifications provided by IFPI as of December 2009. Please take a look before changing numbers at the table; unless there is a reliable source for the sales in a certain country do not change the numbers in the table.
Also take a look at Wikipedia:BADCHARTS to see which sources should not be used as refernces before adding them. Thank you. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, if someone could find reliable sources to be added to the certifications table that would be really great! The album charted high in the Netherlands, Italy (where it was cerified Platinum???), Spain, Norway. But please make sure that the sources are reliable and according to Wikipedia rules. Thanx! :) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Reality Killed the Video Star/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  (citations to reliable sources):  (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hi MariAna_MiMi, I think this is a pretty well-written article, a vast improvement over the original version submitted for GA in May. I have identified a handful of problems that need addressing before I can promote to GA - these are detailed below.


### General
Citations should appear after a mark of punctuation. For example, in the lead the cite for platinum certification in Europe should be placed after the comma i.e. "The album has been certified platinum in Europe for sales of over one million copies,[10] including 900,000 copies sold in the UK alone.[11]  Done
The link to the German EMI page [55] should be direct rather than going to a Google translate page.  Done


### Background information
Just a personal thing but I think it would be better to simply call the section 'Background'.  Done
Do we know what happened to the material Williams worked on with Chambers, Mekanik and Ronson acting as producers? Did this actually happen or was it just a rumour? Why was the decision made to work exclusively with Horn?
It did take place, but it seems that it did not make the album in the end. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Reality Killed The Video Star was Williams' first studio album in three years [...] the British singer later confirmed [...]" Can you give some dates here?  Done
"At first it was believed that Williams had reunited with Chambers, but it was later confirmed that the song "Blasphemy" was written during the recording sessions of his fifth studio album Escapology, although it was not included in the album." this sentence could be worded better - you should make it more obvious that "Blasphemy" was written by Williams and Chambers.  Done
"In February..." Year needed.  Done
"Rumours of a new studio album co-written with Chambers had surfaced in early 2007 along with known commitments required by Williams to complete his EMI contract. British singer-songwriter Laura Critchley commented that she had sung vocals for three songs, and said that the LP would not be released until 2009." There's no cite for first sentence. The quote by Critchley comes from September 2007 but it's placement makes it sound like it refers to recording in early 2007.
Added cite for 1st sentence. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 11:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"The album was mostly written in Williams' home studio and was recorded in London." Cite?  Done
From the album booklet. Don't know if I can find a source. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
You can use the album cite template for the booklet:
{{cite album-notes|title=|albumlink=|bandname=|year=|notestitle=|url=|first=|last=|page=|format=|publisher=|publisherid=|location=}}

I need some help with this... I'm not sure how to use it. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Title is the album title, albumlink is the title of the Wiki page on that article (in this case it would be the same as title), bandname would be Robbie Williams, year is the year of release, format is 'CD booklet', publisher is the record company that released the CD. You can leave the other fields blank.Cavie78 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Amongst those who collaborated in the songwriting are Danny Spencer and Kelvin Andrews, Brandon Christy, Craig Russo, Richard Scott and Scott Ralph, Chas Jankel and Fil Eisler." Not supported by the cite.  Done
They are listed at the official track listing section. Should I try to find a source? They are also listed at Allmusic. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
See above.
"he described himself as "buzzing, it sounds big. Very, very big"." Needs rewording to something like "he described himself as "buzzing" and went on to call the album's sound "Very, very big".  Done
"Williams spoke about what he expects from the album" I think it would be better to say "Williams spoke about his hopes for the album..." Also, when was this? Presumably before the album's release?  Done


### Musical style
Why is this a subsection of 'Background'? I see no reason why it shouldn't be a level 2 heading.  Done
Is there more to say about the musical style of the album? The section is good but it is all taken from a single source...
I will try, but I'm not sure if I can find more info on that. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


### Release and promotion
I'm a bit concerned that this section contains a bit too much information about particular performances. For example: "The singer appeared on The X Factor on October 11, 2009 to perform live. He was featured on the November 2009 cover of GQ UK."
"Other artists who have previously won the award include Paul McCartney, Sting, David Bowie, Elton John, Paul Weller, Tom Jones, U2 and Eurythmics." I'm not sure this is relevant - the article is not about this particular BRIT award.  Done


### Singles
You should include a release date for "Bodies".  Done


### Critical reception
The section relies too much on large chunks of quotes. You summarise reviews in your own words, using quotes to support.  Done
I will need more time to do this. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


### Commercial performance
Why do we need to know how the album fared in comparison with Susan Boyle and JLS? You should point out that the JLS album pipped Reality... to number 1 in the UK charts.
Shouldn't I leave that there? Because the album had the 3rd best selling 1st week of 2009. That's why I think the others should be mentioned too. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the info as long as you say why it's there. Cavie78 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


### Remaining concerns
Thanks for addressing most of my concerns MariAna. There are still a few issues remaining which I've detailed below for ease of reference. Cavie78 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you fully understood my point about overquoting in the 'Critical reception' section. At present you pretty much just say "Critic A from publication X said "..." and "..."". There is no need for direct quotes to be used in the majority of cases. For instance this is ok:

But you could easily put much of this in your own words:

I would suggest something like:

  Done
I meant the above as a suggestion to try and explain how other quotes in the section could be reworded. Try to frame things in your own words rather than simply copying chunks of text. Cavie78 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I only used small parts of the quotes, the way it is now is a significant change form how it used to be. Should I change more? I don't think that there are too many chunks of text, after all it should state what the reviewer said with quotes and not the way I said it. No? MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 17:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It does seem better now. I've made some minor changes and I consider my problems with this section addressed. Cavie78 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't dealt with my concerns regarding the JLS info in the 'Commercial performance'. You need to say that the JLS album pipped Reality... to number 1 in the UK charts.  Done
The 'Release and promotion' section contains too much 'trivia' type information in my opinion. For instance:

Why is this important? You say nothing about the content of, what I presume was an interview in GQ. What song/s did he perform on the X Factor? Was this actually promotion for the album? 

He performed "Bodies", I added that. I will read the GQ interview to see if there is any info about the album.
GQ interview page 4, he talks about the album. Should I add the interview to the external links section perhaps?

No but I'd definitely state that the interview concerns the album to make it more obvious. Also, can you use any of the interview to flesh out the article? Cavie78 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I still think you could do more with the 'Musical style' section - many of the reviews you use talk about the musical style of the album.
I have added other opinions regarding this section from The Quietus & BBC Music should I add more? MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I certainly think you could improve the article by adding more but the changes you've made means I'm happy to promote to GA, good work! Cavie78 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank U very much!! :-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Isnt it time to close this GA review and grant it GA-status. We cant have unreasonable high demands on a single article. I personally atleast find it to be GA ready by far.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a case of "personally" finding an article to be GA ready, there are a list of criteria which need to be checked against and I certainly don't think I have made "unreasonale demands" on this article. MariAna asked for some extra time to address my remaining, minor, concerns which I have granted. When this is done I will give the article GA status. Cavie78 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)