# Talk:The Fear (Lily Allen song)

the single NEVER charted on the Oricon Weekly Charts... I checked it, and the source/link on the page is mistaken because it refers to an independant Japanese Airplay Chart...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterious Spy (talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fear (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more 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 lead and in the Background section, "Initially, the song "Everyone's At It" was supposed to be released as the lead single from the album", remove "supposed", not very encyclopedic to have. A suggestion in the lead, maybe replacing "famous" with "recognized", since "famous" is a peacock term, just a suggestion. In the Background, maybe adding "British" between "daily" and "tabloid", since you do mention that Allen goes after the British newspapers in the lead. In the Critical reception section, "...but, given her own personal tabloid history (i.e. scandals)", is this ---> "(i.e. scandals}" needed? In the Live performances and promotion section, see if you can spot anything wrong with this sentence ---> "...Allen talked about talked about her struggles with the paparazzi and also premiered the song by performing it live." Same section, "Firday Ross" ---> "Friday Ross". Same section, "In February", what year? Same section, replace "Ellen" with "DeGeneres". Same section, "campain" ---> "campaign".
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the lead, "however, it was ultimately decided on "The Fear" to be released on 26 January, 2009 by Regal Recordings" ---> "however, it was ultimately decided on "The Fear" to be released on 26 January 2009 by Regal Recordings", no need for the comma after January, per here. Do the same in the Music video section. In the Critical reception section, "...and went on to say that it's in fact" ---> "...and went on to say that it is in fact", per here. Since this is a British article, the dates need to be consistent; the Commercial performance section is what I'm referring to. Linking "£" might help.
Check.
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: 
NME and The Skinny need to be italicized, since both are magazines.
Check.
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): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Are "Music Lovers Group" and "I Like Music" reliable sources?
Check.
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: 
File:Lily Allen - The Fear.jpg needs a lower resolution.
Check.
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!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I resolved all problems except the one with the two sources. I Like Music seems like a good source to me, though the other one looks like a self-published source. I will look for substitutes for both of them, I hope I can find somehting. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've substituted both sources. Hope everything is good now and thank you for the lovely review :) --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Everything is in order. Alright, thank you to 12345abcxyz20082009 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You may want to go through the article and remove some close wording.
"Musically, Allen adopts a more mature electropop sound to the song, which has been described to have "a pulsing, sleekly modern electro dance backing",[5] while sticking out of a flood of soft synths[6] and being eminently danceable and slightly trancey.[7]"
celebrity superficiality set to a pulsing, sleekly modern electro dance backing, somewhat trite though it is, sticking out of a flood of soft synths, Eminently danceable and slightly trancey, she apologises for her avarice
Citing something does not entitle you to steal their words. Either reword, or add quotation marks. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Having taken 5 hours to install Logic Studio on my Mac, I was interested to see that The Fear is basically given away with the software as a Logic project.  I note in the project it's 134bpm, whereas the article claims 136.  I have no idea whether it was slightly speeded up for release or not, I suspect not, but figured I would ask where 136 came from, rather than change the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkns (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 

It's 134 bpm, not 136. I know this for a fact because I have the actual Logic Pro 9 file for the actual song (the file comes with Logic when you download the software). --Rainbowroad6w (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does the song make reference to the Great Depression??? 190.190.52.39 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I am extremely curious about this too!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.52.115 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Fear (Lily Allen song). 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/20090505200859/http://www.billboard.com:80/bbcom/reviews-singles/the-fear-1003936396.story to http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/reviews-singles/the-fear-1003936396.story#/bbcom/reviews-singles/the-fear-1003936396.story
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 20:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on The Fear (Lily Allen song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2009/press25.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708042223/http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&item=1753797&count=9999999 to http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&item=1753797&count=9999999
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708040646/http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&item=1755715&count=9999999 to http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&count=9999999&item=1755715
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308040533/http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&item=1756420&count=9999999 to http://www.lilyallenmusic.com/emi-site/site.php?page=news&item=1756420&count=9999999
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)