Talk:Luck... or Something

Inclusion of (Mine) track listing

The inclusion of the (Mine) track listing is inappropriate. This is a separate release from Luck... or Something, and each song is listed (via its edition inclusion) in the marketing and packaging section, which is more appropriate. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. (Mine) as a whole is indeed a separate release from Luck.. or Something, being a limited vinyl-format compilation exclusively for Record Store Day in a couple of months, but the re-recordings are NOT exclusive to that release as they were both announced and released as bonus tracks for selected versions of the album this article's about. Besides, as of right now, there's no mention about the "With Love" re-recording in the article, even tough that's a song included (alongside the other re-recordings) as a bonus track for the Walmart and international limited CD releases. It is worth noting that this song in particular wasn't included in any of the limited-issue vinyl variants just like the others. Rey 7919 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but attempts were made to list (Mine) as its own independent release, which was false. Not to mention, also unsourced. How it is now (with some corrections) is proper. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Mixed or positive?

There's ongoing dispute in Critical reception. Several users think the album received positive reviews, while other believe it received mixed reviews. I haven't seen MOS or WP about this, all that I know is MOS:SYNTH. And the term "generally" is not recommended in proses per MOS:WEASEL unless reliable sources support it. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 03:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with "generally"? I couldn't find it in that guideline. In any case, I would classify this album as (currently) having received generally positive reviews. The majority of the reviews on the page lean positive. Breaktheicees (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The term "generally favorable reviews" comes from {{Metacritic album}} so that would more so be an issue to take up at that template. Per their Metascores, anything within the 61–80 for films, music, and television is considered generally favorable. As for the line "Luck... or Something was met with mixed reception from music critics." reception has been mixed across the board. "The majority of the reviews on the page lean positive"—no they have not. There is an even split of four reviews that are above the middle ground (AllMusic, The Arts Desk, The AU Review, and Rolling Stone) and four that exist within that middle ground (Associated Press. The A.V. Club, Exclaim!, and Pitchfork). As explained per this edit summary: "[a]lso there is no such thing as "mixed-to-positive" reviews [or "mixed-to-negative" for that matter]; reception simply is mixed overall when not mostly negative or mostly positive". Stating mixed to positive is inappropriate. Reception has been mixed; people attempting to use either Metacritic's or AnyDecentMusic's assessment is wrong. As well, fans (both registered and anonymous) tend to want to steer away from anything not positive, which is not adhering to Wikipedia stance on maintaining neutral points of view on its articles. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have implemented {{Disputed inline}} while the talk page discussion is ongoing; any changes to the line quoted above/marked with the template goes against WP:GAMING/WP:STONEWALL and should be reverted. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what your definition of "middle ground" is. Is there a guideline for that? In my view, I see that as anywhere from 40-60%; anything lower leans negative and anything higher leans positive. With that criteria, the reviews lean positive. Breaktheicees (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't view it like that at all. If that were the case, many released projects that have been released would lean more positive (when they were not). I view it based on school gradings. 100–90 (A) and 88–80 (B) are positive; 79–70 (C) is mixed/could be improved; and 69–60 (D) and 59–0 (F) are negative/needs improvement. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, my viewpoint is exactly how Metacritic publishes their scores – where a score of 50 is viewed as mixed or average and 70 as generally favorable. This is very similar to the review standards of Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and IGN (which at one point regularly reviewed music), among others. There are very few albums that I would ever score as an A via school gradings simply because music is subjective. A perfect album with nearly every song being a 10/10 just isn't likely for me or professional critics. In my opinion, an album where I like half of the songs isn't bad, it's mixed. Metacritic isn't the end-all be-all, but there's clearly some kind of established precedent here, even if you don't agree with it. Breaktheicees (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand that. However, it is not about how Metacritic bases their scores. It is about the entire reception. The school grading comparisons was simply an example of how I would explain it. However, as I pointed out before, there is an even split of the reviews (although, one would wager Slant Magazine's review is more mixed than positive or negative, as the middle ground between the four positive-leaning and the four-mixed/negative leaning. To state reception was positive, on an overall scale, is false representation. I could understand if Metacritic did not receive its own mention immediately following with AnyDecentMusic, but it does. It is not about what the album received, based on Metacritic. It is about what the album received on an overall scale. What any editor views of their liking/disliking is not relevant, nor does it maintain a neutral point of view. Also, just for note, do not link to Archive.Today, per WP:ATODAY. They DDoS their users, and the website is blacklisted from inclusion on Wikipedia. Either we weigh it independent of Metacritic (as it is now) or we remove Metacritic's mention/scoring, and simply use that as the overall reception (as exampled at Prism (Katy Perry album)). livelikemusic (TALK!) 00:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of WP:ATODAY. I had no idea and was simply trying to make the Rolling Stone article more accessible. Clearly my own liking/disliking is not important but the point I was trying to make is that my viewpoint does align with established publications. If this article's critical reception section was formatted similarly to Prism without the mentions of the aggregators, I have no issue with that. Breaktheicees (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be the safest bet to go with; I am going to be bold enough to make the change. If people descent or wish to discuss more we can. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luck... or Something/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Camilasdandelions (talk · contribs) 05:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 20:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my name is RTSthestardust and I will reviewing your nomination of Luck... or Something for GA-status. - RTSthestardust (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Right now @Camilasdandelions, there's two big things you will need to fix/add, and you shall be good to go. - RTSthestardust (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@RTSthestardust Thanks a lot for your review. Those have been addressed. Regards, Camilasdandelions (✉️) 02:00, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's all I need. Here's your GA. - RTSthestardust (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Note

• I made very small additions including commas, years for releases, and being up-to-date (as the first tour ended and the second one began)

Additions/Revisions

• The audio sample for "Roommates" is too long based on it being nearly three minutes; cut it to at least 17 seconds to fulfill Wikipedia non-free audio policy (the 10% approach).

• Ok, here's something I want you to do to make the charts section look complete: Mention the chart appearances from Belgium, Canada (and Canadian International), Croatia, France, Hungary, Italy (and Physical Albums), Scotland, Spain, and Switzerland, also emphasizing ones that had the biggest chart placements internationally. Once completed with that, add the Canada certification fact (including what organization, the date, and certification) as the final sentence of the Charts section.
• Not required for GA, but after this part above is done, I want you to archive all of the remaining citations without archive links just in case to prevent link rot.

GA Criteria Table

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.	Well-done; very little issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good use of detail
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.	Incredibly great structure; some citations may need an archive links though
	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).	No misses
	2c. it contains no original research.	Checked throughout.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 21.3%, which is overall very good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The lead, background, composition, promotion, critical reception, commercial performance, track list, and personnel are well-addressed; except the chart section may need finishing development
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Consistent with no distracting issues spotted
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Your percentage takes up 50.4% of the whole authorship, which is considerably great; also stable
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.	There's one free and two non-free files, all carrying both proper sources; however, the audio sample may need to be shortened to 17 seconds to fulfill WP non-free audio policy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very good descriptions for the images; alt text is good too.
	7. Overall assessment.	Hold; two issues need to be fixed