Talk:Fifty-Sixty

Untitled

The song is FIFTY SIXTY without a - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.165.4.200 (talk • contribs)

No its with the - (dash). See . --soum ^talk 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The charts are all wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.163.189.217 (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fifty-Sixty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: J'ai pas vingt ans ! (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Given the recent issues at Alizée articles, I'll review it. Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 03:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):

   Can be improved

   B. MoS compliance (including, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):

   See below

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources (including an appropriate reference section):

   Multiple unreliable sources

   B. Citation of available and reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):

   Multiple unreliable sources; some statements are unsourced

   C. No original research:

   It reaches multiple conclusions not specified by the sources

   D. No copyright violations:

   Not in-text copyvio, but some sources fail WP:ELNEVER

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article lacks in-depth information about the song. The statements that are required for a song are backed-up by unreliable sources

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   It says it was moderately successful, but this is not supported, so, this is biased

5. Is it stable?

   edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):

6. Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?

   A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Infobox

• Audio video: The video says 2023, not 2022

Lead

• "as the second and final single for her third studio album, Psychédélices (2007)" → from
• "In Mexico, it received airplay, reaching various positions across different areas." → This is vague and it is not immediately obvious without consulting the chart.
• Belgium, France and Mexico should not be linked, refer to WP:SEAOFBLUE.
• ""Fifty-Sixty" did not chart on the official singles chart. → repetitive language
• "number 22 in France" → France is once again linked
• The EU doesn't need a link
• "The music video for "Fifty-Sixty" by Alizée" → It is already known she is the singer
• "of her single "Mademoiselle Juliette."" → "of her single "Mademoiselle Juliette"." → The period goes outside the quote here.

Background

• The whole section is WP:COATRACKing Mes courants électriques, the information is not relevant for this specific song, at most it is relevant at Psychédélices. However, some of the sources included are unreliable (like Discogs), and others reach conclusions that are not even mentioned in the links: "In March 2003, Alizée's second studio album, Mes courants électriques, was released, marking a significant evolution in her musical style, incorporating electropop and rock elements", for example. This is original research.

Composition

• ""Fifty-Sixty" is a french pop" → French is a proper noun
• "with production handled by Chatelain and Sylvain Carpentier" → Not in the citation given
• "Recording sessions took place in 2007 at Juno Studio and Wisteria Studios, both located in Paris" → Not in the citation given
• "Musically, "Fifty-Sixty" incorporates computer-generated effects while maintaining a pop-oriented structure." → Musicbrainz is not a reliable source

Release and promotion

• Despite the singles not receiving much success on charts, she did perform "Fifty-Sixty" live many times. → This is a single, not a plural, the "did" is superfluous, and I don't see the co-relation to structure the sentence this way. If she performed it live many times, it can be assumed exactly because her label wanted it to chart.
• "This include a live performance, aired on M6 in March 2008" → This source is a copyright violation, refer to WP:ELNEVER
• What makes this link a reliable source?
• The DVD archive also seems to be a copyright violation unless @sophie6344 is the copyright holder of that video.
• "This include" → "This includes"
• "a live performance, aired" → "a televised performance aired"
• "on in March 2008" → "in March 2008"
• "was supposed to be performed in France, but was cancelled due to high attention in Mexico" → "was scheduled to be performed" and "due to greater demand in Mexico"
• This source and this source don't mention the song
• The source doesn't say that she was supposed to perform the song in France and that due to the Mexican demand it would not be performed. It says that a concert in France was cancelled, maybe because of the Mexican demand or maybe because of a lack of interest.

Commercial performance

• Refer to MOS:NUMERO for the incorrect use of a number sign
• Upon release, the single achieved moderate success. → This claim needs a source. It didn't even chart in her native country or the Mexican singles chart.
• In Belgium (Wallonia) → In the French-speaking Wallonia region of Belgium
• "did not chart on any music charts managed by AMPROFON" → "did not appear on any official charts managed by AMPROFON"
• "received various airplay" → "received airplay"
• chartsaroundtheworld.com is listed at WP:BADCHARTSAVOID. Further, MTV is just a network, so it is not necessarily a chart, it's just an internal countdown (i.e. WP:BADCHARTS)

Music video

• alizeeamerica.com is not a reliable source
• IMDb is not a reliable source
• Blogspot is not a reliable source

Weekly charts

• The title for the Belgium chart reference is incorrect. Also, I highly advise you to use {{single chart}} instead.

References

• Multiple references need to be cleaned-up

Veredict.

• ✗ Fail The article doesn't meet the GA criteria; it is not even close the WP:B-class criteria. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Welp, thanks for taking the time to review it. I'm glad that you were brutally honest within the review. Do you think a peer review can help me make this article better? Again, thanks for reviewing. Have a good day/night wherever you are. J'ai pas vingt ans ! (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, during the early stages, it is highly recommended to use WP:PR before going for a good article to check what else can be done to get an article improved. Regards. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)