Talk:Bring Me to Life/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Lapadite (talk · contribs) 13:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 08:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Surprised this isn't a GA already. I'll review it. Nub098765 (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This article is overly reliant on quotations in conveying its message. Like, it's bordering on copyvios. At present, I count a little under 200 quotation marks in the prose. While some quotes can illustrate a point, most can be paraphrased and just as effective. I recommend keeping essential quotes, particularly those that provide unique insight or perspective, but reducing or eliminating unnecessary quotations. Also, some passages feel unconcise (is that a word?) and could be worded better. For example: The song received a generally positive reception, with critics praising Lee's vocals and melody. It reached number one in Australia, Chile, Colombia, Italy, Scotland, and the United Kingdom as well as the top five in Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. — Does the reader need the entire list to understand its commercial success? I feel like "...in many countries, including..." and then listing a few countries does the same, in fewer words. Lee wrote "Bring Me to Life" at age 19, after a then-acquaintance (who later became her husband) asked her if she was happy; Lee was in an abusive relationship and in turmoil, and was shocked the person saw through her facade as she felt she "was completely outwardly acting normal". "I felt like he could just see straight into my soul. That inspired the whole song," she explained. — "then-" is unnecessary here; it is inferred through the parenthetical that they are no longer her acquaintance. Also, rather than using a semicolon here, separating this into two sentences would be beneficial. Maybe: Lee wrote "Bring Me to Life" when she was 19, after an interaction with an acquaintance who later became her husband. At the time, she was struggling in an abusive relationship and was surprised when he asked if she was happy, seeing through the facade she had been maintaining. "I felt like he could just see straight into my soul. That inspired the whole song," she explained. After the moment that inspired her to write it, she "realized that for months I'd been numb, just going through the motions of life." — Overly complex and confusing phrasing. The sentence shifts between third-person narration and Lee's direct quote. Could be rephrased: After that moment, Lee realized she had been emotionally numb for months, simply "going through the motions of life." In 2022, Lee noted that she was finding her voice lyrically while making the album, realizing "how the more honest I was, the more powerful I felt"; the song was "in a broader way about breaking free from something I knew I had the power to if I was brave enough", and represented "true desires, unspoken frustrations and fears, standing up to the bullshit around me [that] I was just on the cusp of being able to defeat". — Fragmented quotation usage. Perhaps: In 2022, Lee reflected on how she found her lyrical voice during the album's creation, realizing that the more honest she was, the more powerful she felt. She described the song as a representation of "true desires, unspoken frustrations and fears" and her realization that she could break free if she would be brave enough to face the challenges around her. In order to market it, the label forced them to add the male rapping vocal, which Lee did not want, or the song and album would not be released. The male vocal was a compromise after the label originally demanded they include a rap on eight of the songs on the album. During an interview, Lee stated: "It was presented to me as, 'You're a girl singing in a rock band, there's nothing else like that out there, nobody's going to listen to you. You need a guy to come in and sing back-up for it to be successful.'" Lee wrote Paul McCoy's part. — Generally, "in order to" can simply be shortened to "to". Also, "or the song and album would not be released" could be streamlined. Referring to "the male vocal" again is redundant; it could simply be referred to by a pronoun. Also, the lead-in for the quote could flow better. Perchance: To market it, the label forced them to add a male rap vocal, which Lee opposed, threatening not to release the song or album otherwise. This was a compromise after the label initially demanded rap on eight tracks. In an interview, Lee recalled being told, "You're a girl singing in a rock band, there's nothing else like that out there, nobody's going to listen to you. You need a guy to come in and sing back-up for it to be successful." Lee wrote Paul McCoy's part. On the chorus, Lee sings the lines "'Call my name and save me from the dark' over "surging guitars", and McCoy raps the lines "Wake me up/ I can't wake up/ Save me!". — It'd be "in the chorus", not "on the chorus". The phrase "the lines" is unnecessary. The quotes around "surging guitars" are unnecessary; that's a simple description. Also shouldn't each slash have a space before and after? Rolling Stone's Kirk Miller said that the song is stylistically a "case of mistaken identity", dooming the band to Linkin Park comparisons "thanks to [its] digital beats, clean metal-guitar riffs, scattered piano lines and all-too-familiar mix of rapping and singing."[23] Blair R. Fischer of MTV called it a "ubiquitous rap-rock confection".[13] Richard Harrington from The Washington Post described its sound as "crunching metallic".[24] Ann Powers from the Los Angeles Times said that "with its lyrical drama and crunchy guitars, [the song] branded the band as overdone nu-metal."[25] "Bring Me to Life" has also been classified as hard rock,[26] alternative rock,[27] and Blender writer Nick Catucci described it as a "crossover goth-metal smash".[28] Nick Catucci of The Village Voice wrote that "piano tinkles, Lee's breathless keen, dramatic pauses, guitars like clouds of locusts, [and] McCoy's passing-12-kidney-stones guest vocals" characterize the song, which "sounds like church-burning, brain-eating European dark metal."[29] Vik Bansal of MusicOMH said the track contains "Lee's temptress vocals, pseudo-electronic beats à la Linkin Park, understated but menacing metallic riffs in the background, and a ripping, radio-friendly rock chorus."[30] MTV described it as "an unrelenting paean that begins as hauntingly delicate before piling on crumpled guitar lines and a rap" while "Lee's vocals soar above the whole sludgy mixture".[6] — This paragraph is a whirlwind of quotes. Many of these could be rephrased and stated as fact rather than writing them verbatim and attributing them to a specific person. Also, why is Nick Catucci introduced twice? Are they the same person? I understand Nick's writing for two different outlets, but if they really are the same person, you don't need to introduce them in full twice. And that's just the "Composition and recording" section (well, beside the first comment). These prose issues persist throughout the article. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Quotations#Overuse and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use clear, precise and accurate terms. On a good note, though, I like how you wrote the "Chart performance" section. That is an exemplary section for this article, and with some minor adjustments, it could really be perfect.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pretty well-formatted. However, why are "2017 Synthesis arrangement" and "Cover versions" different 2L sections? They could both just be in a section titled "Other versions" and not clutter the TOC. Alternatively, since there is a total of one non-primary source for the cover version, it could be removed altogether, as it doesn't seem integral to the subject, or perhaps not even notable.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a list of references.
	2b. 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).	Everything is cited to a source. And most of these sources are reliable. However, I would like to comment on the reliability of three sources in particular: Songfacts is user-generated, so unreliable per WP:USERG. Alternative Press is considered unreliable. What makes Scuzz TV's interview a reliable source? Would this count as a primary source?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well, since there are so many quotes, I don't think there's much room for original research to breed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says "violation possible", with 71.5% similarity. Too concerningly high.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, it covers the main topics.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Seems to stay pretty focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems neutral setting aside the quotes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Very stable. No ongoing edit wars, no move discussions, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one image is fair use, and is tagged as such.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Identifies the subject of the article, and is in the lead. No caption available.
	7. Overall assessment.	See below.

Apologies if this seems hasty, but I'm going to have to quickfail this nomination. There are simply too many quotes to be reasonably reworked over the course of this GAN review. Paraphrasing these quotes would give this article much more to stand on. However, it isn't all bad; there are many aspects where this article excels. However, due to criteria 1a and 2d, I'm going to have to quickfail this.

You've obviously put a lot into this article (I mean, writing exactly one third of it isn't an easy feat), and I applaud you for your edits. But its prose feels too clunky in some areas and the article simply relies too heavily on quotations. If you'd like, you can incorporate my suggestions and shave down the quotations and renominate this article at a later time. Best of luck with this article in the future! Thanks, Nub098765 (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Response

Hi @Nub098765:. Unfortunately, you didn't give me a chance to fix or respond to your concerns as you failed the GAN at the same time you made your review. A review can be placed on hold to allow the nominator time to respond; seven days is the accepted timeframe for a review completion. As you mentioned, I'm a top editor of the article, but obviously not the only contributor and I disagreed with several edits that added to what you had an issue with in the review. Your concerns can be fixed with copy editing, which I could've finished within a couple days; the copyright violations, for instance, is simply from the use of quotations. Of course, it's your prerogative as the reviewer to pass/hold/fail, but I wanted to let you know that I believe the immediate fail here is unwarranted as copy editing would've fixed the issue. Hopefully when the article is re-nominated it doesn't spend another 3 months in the queue. Lapadite (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Heya, @Lapadite. I appreciate your feedback and I apologize if my review felt hasty or abrupt. As a newer reviewer, I'm still learning the ropes, and I realize now that I should have allowed time for you to respond and make changes, which is the standard practice. I appreciate your patience with that.

That said, while I understand that some of the concerns might have been fixable with copy editing, I still feel that the article had significant issues—especially regarding the overuse of quotes—which led me to fail it under QF criterion 1. In my view, it seemed like the article was still a long way from meeting the Good Article criteria. I do acknowledge that others may have handled the review differently, and I definitely could have communicated better to give you the chance to address those issues first.

Again, I'm sorry if my actions caused frustration, and I hope this doesn't discourage you from renominating the article once it's been revised. I'd be happy to review it again (this time with a full review) if you'd like or let another reviewer take it, as you prefer.

Thanks again for your understanding. Best of luck with whichever direction you decide to take this article. Nub098765 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nub098765: No worries, I wanted to express my view on the decision. I appreciate your understanding as well. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)