Jump to content

Talk:Adam's Song

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title is a reference to ...?

[edit]

Can anyone find a reliable source that tells what the title of the song is a reference to? A couple "theories" have previously been presented in the article, but they weren't cited. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The singer of the song, Mark Hoppus says that the song is inspired by his own troubles on the tour. Hence "The tour was over, we've survived." I'll see if I can find the article... 60.231.80.44 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Adam's Song/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 08:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Single artwork needs an alt description
  • Why is DVD listed as a release format? Singles aren't released on DVD.
  • Because the word "song" is in the name of the song, there is quite a lot of repetition of "song", especially in the first paragraph of the lead. Use It or the track for variety.
  • on September 5, 2000 → Comma after 200 per MOS:DATE
  • The song concerns suicide and depression. The song → Repetitive
  • shares writing credits between → was written by
  • Mention that DeLonge and Hoppus are in the band for clarity
  • and was regarded as one of the most serious songs the band had written to that point. → By who?
  • significant others → Link this or use partners
  • and contains lyrical allusions to the grunge band Nirvana. → How?
  • songs written → songs to be written
  • and nearly was → and it was nearly
  • two on → two on the US
  • There needs to be a bit more info about the music video here. Brief overview.
  • Image in background section needs an alt description
  • In late 1997 and early 1998, the band would be on the road for nine months straight, only coming home to San Diego for days at a time before striking out on the next tour. → This reads a bit fan written.
  • The block quote in Recording and production doesn't need quotation marks; the indent is indicative of this.
  • It was the last song written for the album, and nearly did not make it on there at all. → Fan written, needs sourcing.
  • Although usually vocals would → Although vocals would usually
  • Categorized as → Never phrase a genre like this. It reads poorly.
  • Nowhere in source 15 does the article label the song as alternative rock. It needs removing from and elsewhere.
  • If the song contains lyrics from a Nirvana song, are you sure it's not an official sample?
  • Avoid one line sentences, like at the end of Commercial performance
  • Reaching number 1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 generally is not indicative of being a successful song, and it wasn't certified either (have you checked?)
  • Again, in Controversy, no need for quotation marks in the block quote
  • If it was that controversial, I'm sure you could find more info than the little there is now.
  • Music video, and use in popular culture could be one paragraph
  • Weekly charts should be the same width
  • Ref 6 link MTV
  • Don't WP:SHOUT in references
Outcome

The article too reliant on quotes. It reads like a WP:QUOTEFARM. Some parts as highlighted do not sound neutral either, a bit fan written. On hold for 7 days. Please ping me or leave me a talkback message on my user talk incase I don't see it in my watch list when you are done.  — Calvin999 09:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've implemented some changes though I also have some answers for your suggestions:
  • "DVD" was included because it was released as a DVD. I imagine this was some sort of new promotion thing because DVDs were new at the time, and there weren't many DVD singles. Here is proof: http://www.amazon.com/Blink-182-Overboard-Adams-Single/dp/B00005J6V5
    • Ah right okay. I've never seen it before, that's why I questioned it.  — Calvin999
  • I mention in the first paragraph that DeLonge and Hoppus are guitarist and bassist, respectively, and I think that's enough for a reader to infer they're in the band.
    • Okay fine, but I don't think adding "the band's" before guitarist would hurt.  — Calvin999
  • Many of the reviews quoted in the critical reception section give you an idea of why critics considered it a more "serious" song. For example, this: "[It] hints at the emotional maturity they'd show on later releases, especially 2003's self-titled album," or it's "rare departure from the usual Blink fare".
    • I don't know which point you are referring to here?  — Calvin999
  • "contains lyrical allusions" -- We're in the lead, I don't feel it's necessary to explain exactly how Nirvana is referenced when there's plenty in the article that tells the reader what song is referenced and how. The lead gives the reader an overview, and mine's long enough. I felt it notable to include that it references Nirvana, but if the reader would like to know more, they can simply scroll down. Noting a cultural reference in the lead section is commonplace on plenty of articles: Deep Space Homer, etc
    • But this is a really good fact I don't think a couple of more words to explain it would be that detrimental. As you say, the lead is an overview, and I think this is quite an important piece of info.  — Calvin999
  • How is "It was the last song written for the album, and nearly did not make it on there at all" fan-written? No question, I love this band, but there's no hint of bias in that statement, and it's purely factual. The source for it is behind the next sentence, which is common to do in Wikipedia articles, I understand. Here is the exact sentence from that source: "It was the last song written for the album and it almost didn’t make it on at all." I've updated the sentence to be a little less plagiarized but... what would you like me to do? In trying to fill out sections like that, I'd like to include the info that it nearly was cut from the album -- pretty interesting for a song that became a single.
    • It's the "at all" part which makes it sound fan written. You don't need that bit; 'and nearly did not make it is' is indicative of being 'at all', it's just puffed up. Don't use 10 words when you can use 5.  — Calvin999
  • The source for alternative rock is titled "Top 10 Alt-Rock Videos". I didn't add that, but I felt it fine enough to leave. It's also worth noting a sentence from that article: "Blink-182 got serious..."
    • The citation to which alternative rock is followed by made no mention of the genre at all.  — Calvin999
      • I think I'll give input on this one (I was the one who added the source in the first place). The article is about the top music videos of alternative rock songs, as said in the article's title, and the song is in the list, so I wouldn't say it's not mentioned. Also, if you listen to the song, this not a straightforward pop punk song, unlike the rest of the album it's on, which was why I added that and cited it. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were an official Nirvana sample, wouldn't Cobain or whoever be credited in the writing credits? Perhaps not, but they've never really mentioned it anywhere whether or not they got clearance to use those lyrics. Would be interesting to ask Hoppus in a Reddit AMA or something, but for now, no one knows.
  • The song was certainly commercially successful. It was a number two hit on the standard alt-rock chart in the States, which means it received tons of radio airplay (also evidenced by the BDS certified award I reference). Whether or not it was a hit on the Hot 100 is irrelevant. Perhaps compared to the previous single it wasn't as big, but I'm confident most people would consider a top five hit on any music chart to be some measure of success. And no, it wasn't certified, and yes, I've checked.
    • Number 2 on a component chart doesn't make it successful. Christina Aguilera's Bionic album debuted at number one in the UK, then dropped to 29 the following week, the largest drop in UK album history. Being a high charter doesn't mean successful. If you can't find sales figures, and the fact that it hasn't at least been given the lowest certification by RIAA, gold for 500k, then that is generally not commercially successful. Added to that, not even charting on the Hot 100 but the Bubbling Under is indicative of not being commercially successful either. Basically means that not a lot of people bought it. You don't need to sell a lot to chart high on the component rock chart because it's such a minor genre amongst the rest such as pop, R&B, dance etc. I suggest that you reword it to say that while it achieved success on the rock chart, peaking at number two, it did not replicate it's success on other charts. There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't show bias.  — Calvin999
  • The controversy section has seven sources. I believe that is more than enough to prove that it was controversial at that time. How many "Student's suicide set to song" articles from Denver-related newspapers do I need?
    • I'm not commenting on the amount of sources present. I'm saying that controversy usually garners a lot of attention, and there isn't really that much prose. I'm asking whether there could potentially be more. Have you looked in books and journals etc.?  — Calvin999
  • I agree that I could use some more info on the music video, both in the lead and in its section, but what I have listed is all that is available (believe me, I've researched).
    • The lead just needs a synopsis. What does it show/what happens. Only one sentence. The actual section needs to be a bit more indepth. You don't need sources for a synopsis, as you're explaining what happens.  — Calvin999
      • Are you sure we don't need sources for synopsis? Would that not be original research?
        • Look at any GA song/album article, for example. It's impossible to source a synopsis for every video. As long as you aren't bias or fancrufty, it's fine. Of course, branding and name-dropping would require sources. And if you can find any, then of course still use them.  — Calvin999 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The width of the chart box is set by how long the chart's name is. I have no idea how to increase the width of the second chart box.
  • What do you mean WP:SHOUT in references?
    • There shouldn't be any words in block capitals regardless of whether the publication has used them. Click the wikilink and it would have explained that.  — Calvin999

Thanks for the review. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reviewer is blocked, they emailed me, saying, "if the nominator could just go over the final issues, then they are passable." FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and decided to pass.  — Calvin999 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam's 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:

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) 10:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam%27s_Song&oldid=1195537092"