Trouble (Leona Lewis song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 24, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Teen Wolf actor Colton Haynes will play Leona Lewis' love interest in the upcoming music video for her new single "Trouble"?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Leona Lewis (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Leona Lewis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leona LewisWikipedia:WikiProject Leona LewisTemplate:WikiProject Leona LewisLeona Lewis R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Songs This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

? AARON• ^TALK 15:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to have very short memories when it comes to iTunes and release dates. This caused a huge furore when kesha burst onto the scene. iTunes frequently listed a territory or region-based download date. Singles are released in line with the chart publishing date. I.e. in the US albums are released on a Tuesday to get a full week of sales before the new chart is published, in the UK its a sunday etc. Taking the example of "Lovebirds", iTunes says it was released on Friday 16 November 2012 in Spain which is factually inaccurate as the Spanish chart is not published on a Friday. Additionally when the album is being released on the 27 Nov in Spain to get nearly a full week of sales (and 27 is a Tues) it physically makes no logical sense. A quick check of Amazon proves the concept, it was released on the 19 Nov. Applying the same principles here because its obvious iTunes is a large automated system as the world's largest digital retailer but very little care and attention is put into checking the factual accuracy of things like release dates. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, they just don't chart until the following week. Rihanna's album in the US was released on Monday, it didn't chart until the following Wednesday. It got a full week of sales. iTunes is fine. No different than Amazon. AARON• ^TALK 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just proven where its factually incorrect or are you going to claim that iTunes is able to release a song several days before the likes of Amazon? And your point about them not charting until the following doesn't apply, if the same logic applied then some of the bigger name releases wouldn't chart. Best example is When Love Takes Over which was released mid week to combat a leak but still charted the same week it was released. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Rihanna's album was released and got a full week of sales. It happened. Sorry but I will continue to use iTunes. It's stupid that they are being removed. It's down to the record labels who decide when songs are released one which day, not iTunes. iTunes is just the middle man between the seller and the buyer. AARON• ^TALK 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its factually inaccurate. You can't explain why "When Love Takes Over" was released on a Wednesday and charted the same Sunday not the week after. Actually the label decides when to release the song but iTunes decides what date to show. I've proven that iTunes has a factual inaccuracy and that as alternative sources are available they should be sought. I don't know why Aaron but you've become really hostile. The Rihanna example is an album, and its also different because the release isnt as staggered or as varied as Lewis's Glassheart and its songs. I used an example of Lewis's release of "Lovebirds" to prove in this example that iTunes shouldn't be used. Im not saying don't use iTunes but I'm saying in cases like this where there is an inaccuracy iTunes should be avoided. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why. Why do some chart midweek, why do some get 10 days to chart? I'm not being hostile. Alike so many other people on here, we've always used iTunes. I don't see the problem with using it. It's not hostility, it's just my opinion. How do we know when to use and not use iTunes. AARON• ^TALK 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with iTunes. Also, we are encouraged [in my opinion] to use iTunes rather than another source. Why? Because they handle the release of the song. How? Record labels release the song, mostly, through iTunes [and Amazon.com, very often]. In a digitalized world like the one we live in, physical releases are scarce, and they are handled by Amazon. Only the UK publicly handles physical release dates because they are relevant to their culture. UK is not as digital-download-ified like the US. Also, to explain how this works: The airplay week begins on wednesday and ends on the next tuesday. Tracking sales week begins the monday after the airplay week starts and runs through sunday. After the sales week's sunday [which is 5 days after airplay week is over], a new chart is compiled from monday through tuesday and published in thursday. That is why a song takes a week or two to chart after its release. If a song is released wednesday, January 1, it won't appear until the chart issued January 20 [at least in Billboard's case]. There are exceptions, though. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then as I've pointed out an inaccuracy that cannot be explained it makes no logical sense to continue to use iTunes for this particular example. i.e. Lewis's release of "Trouble" or "Lovebirds". Evidently there are better sources out there. And I'm sorry but I did take your response as quite hostile. To call the removal of a source which is being questioned "stupid" and then to say "Sorry but I will continue to use iTunes" isnt exactly a friendly or professional response. Wikipedia works best when people are working and friendly. It doesn't feel massively communal atm. Do you think its my liberty to go around removing information for the sake of it? I'd honestly have better things to do with my time. I'm simply pointing out that there are sometimes alternative or better sources than iTunes available and this is one occasion where others should be sought first. As for Rihanna's Unapologetic I believe Nielsen track sales from Monday-Monday giving them Monday overnight to compile the chart. As for Tuesday releases that was mainly for retail outlets/physical copies traditionally. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it stupid because before it was bought up last week or whenever it was, no one ever had a problem with it. I don't see why iTunes can't be used at all from now on. AARON• ^TALK 16:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only came across it as I had a few hours free and was going to write an article for "Lovebirds" but that's already been done. And actually its been brought up before. Last year and the year before there was a drive to try and include alternative sources like 7 Digital or Amazon in release histories. But now 7 Digital has lost some of their loyalty deals with the labels so some songs appear to have been removed. And tbh its a bit pointless to say "well no one had a problem with it before", I found an issue and I've pointed it out. I am advocating that other sources be sought first but if iTunes fits with the chart nature of a country i.e. the publishing dates match then perhaps in some situations there isn't really an issue. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favor of using other digital retailers as sources over iTunes, if available. With this change in particular, I dont see the need to note release information in countries it did not chart. The earliest date, the artist's native country, and wherever else it charted make sense, but others like Sri Lanka and Austria seem extraneous, so why bother with any retail source for these? It makes sense that iTunes would have errors with these kind of small-market places, though. Dan56 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs a wider RFC. I tend to agree with LilUnique1, but I haven't got any solid sources to support my belief, just logic. If the release dates weren't aligned with the charts, you would see a lot more songs that charted low and then jumped up to number 1 or 2, because the first week would only be including a few days of sales. What I don't know is if they are aligned by having the release dates shifted, by having the charts not count a partial week's sales, or by a mix of both. I don't think that the talk page about one song by one artist is the right place to reach consensus.—Kww(talk) 18:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above discussion and the ones at Talk:Glassheart#Release for countries and Talk:Two Eleven I am going to argue that iTunes is not always a verifiable/reliable source for an accurate release date. Given with this example: the album Glassheart according to iTunes Taiwan was out November 5 yet Sony Music Taiwan clearly says November 27 is when the album was released. Is this scope enough to ask for iTunes to not be used as a reference for release histories given the inconsistencies already found? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's available to buy on Taiwan iTunes, how is it wrong? Statυs (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... me thinking that it's not at November 27th yet. Statυs (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna clarify but you cottoned on to my point. When the label is clearly saying it wasn't released on the 5th yet the retailer is saying that it is? I find it hard to believe that a retailer can release something 22 days before the label does. Also my issue with the "Worldwide (iTunes store)" thing is you end up with messy notes for how many territories are excluded. And its clear that a single iTunes reference doesn't cover the entire world. There are like 150+ countries in the world and there's nowhere near that many iTunes stores. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that iTunes can sometimes fuck up the dates, but it's 1 or 2 days, not 22 days. How about, the album being release digitally on that date, and then physically on 27 November? I think that iTunes is pretty much strong reliable source for releases. Btw, I have to agree about the worldwide thing. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible it could have been released earlier digitally... Oh, I just noticed that Tomica said that above me... haha. Statυs (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I echo this. Digital and physical dates may be different. I really don't think iTunes is as bad as what it is being made out to be. AARON• ^TALK 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, when I go to cite album releases, I never use iTunes or any digital retailer to do so. I found in the past that iTunes generally uses the same date for album releases. But for singles, they are almost always accurate. If not at the moment, they will be adjusted. I've come across a few date errors with singles, and they were eventually fixed by iTunes. Statυs (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the album had been released digital on November 5 in all of the territories claimed then why hasn't it charted in any of those territories? Lewis traditionally does ok in Europe. I'd expect the album to have charted in at least SOME of the territories even if it was a low chart positon. Also Sony Music Spain say here that the album was released in Spain on Nov 27 but there's no mention of an earlier digital release or a separate release yet by the logic being presented that iTunes is correct the album was out 22 days before the label's release date. And I agree with Status, I use iTunes after its been verified or some time has elapsed. My point is when there are alternative sources available why should we have two release histories as present in Glassheart at the moment as someone has decided they want to add one solely sourced by iTunes? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some albums simply do not chart until several weeks after its release date. I've came across this conclusion after years of watching how release dates are like one or two weeks in advance of charts, but that is because of chart formats. Usually, when an album or single is released, they don't appear on the following week but two weeks after. This is becase how trackng data is compiled to make the charts. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable sources on a topic should be preferred over others. In the case of Glassheart, a record label should supercede a digital retailer (even without considering the latter's problems with incorrect dates). Clearly, iTunes is the most accessible source for digital downloads, but if another source exists that seems more reliable, I dont see a problem with using that over it. As I said above, though, articles should rarely warrant such a comprehensive release history that would require iTunes to be used. If a song charted in a certain country, its release date in that country would probably be available from a better source than iTunes. While it is comprehensive, this section at Glassheart might be going into unnecessary detail with all those iTunes digital download dates, especially since the album ultimately charted in only three countries. In short, necessary details and the sources available for them, along with their accuracy, usually work themselves out. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to comment here but I don't know what this is about, sorry. Till 03:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are you all trying to say, the only countries we should put in the release history are the ones that it charted in?....it doesn't have to chart in every country it was released in you know....haven't you heard of an under performing single?...anyway, Dan 56, you said that: "Clearly, iTunes is the most accessible source for digital downloads, but if another source exists that seems more reliable, I dont see a problem with using that over it"....but there isn't any other source for Sri Lanka for example........iTunes is the only one that has that region.......what im saying is, if you can find other digital retailers thats fine, but if you dont, then you cant just remove it altogether...........if you can find other retailers, then fine, but for the time bieng itunes stays...........so far there is no formail written rule in wikipedia that says dont use itunes, so, until then, keep everyting as it is...Fresh nu start (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, we need to separate release dates from when an album/song charts. While it is true that record companies time release dates to give an album the most advantageous debut chart position, when an album charts cannot be used as verification of its release date. I recall one editor was adding in release dates for older singles based exclusively on his "formula" from when it debuted on the charts. His edits were reverted as original research without real verification. Regarding release to iTunes, it seems to me that this date would only confirm when it was released to iTunes and not an official release date (although it may be the same). How would one know if what was released in some other form to some other retailer beforehand. I'd prefer a more reliable source on a release but if iTunes is going to be used, it should indicate its release to iTunes not as the general release date for a region without other confirmation. Finally, why do we even need to list 6, 12, 20, or 30 release dates (sometimes 3 or 4 for one country) for a single song? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually no. We only need to list one release date per country, per format. If the single was released on September 15, 2011 in the US, and a remixes EP on December 10, 2011, then we need to list two release dates [for those two different released formats] for the same country. Otherwise, it's just linkfarm. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fresh nu start, my point was if a song did not perform there, how is it's release information in that country relevant to begin with? Part of song notability is charting. So while Wikipedia is comprehensive, trivia like a release date in a country it did not chart in where there is such a small market that no other retailers are available other than iTunes... Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:LISTN is related here: Although the list is notable for inclusion, in this case a release history section, "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items". Again, how is a Sri Lankan release date by iTunes notable here? Citing the highest criteria, per FAC, stay "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". Dan56 (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" is part of the GA criteria, not FAC. FAC states that comprehensiveness must be at its limits, which is not the case here. However, I agree with the idea about only listing release dates for those countries on which the song charted and / or relevant markets attached to the singer, like their birth country, markets on which they usually chart, etc. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was just trying to find something more concrete for Fresh nu start, who thought no change should be made by virtue of the fact that no "OFFICIAL rule" specifically forbids iTunes from being used the way he wants it to be. Dan56 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Glad to help :) Also, why is he so obsessed with adding Sri Lanka's iTunes' release date? is it different from other countries? Is there any relevant stuff regarding the song's release there? Usually, we list release dates for countries that have charts, regardless of the song's performance. Countries with no chart available are usually left out, mainly because we cannot measure the performance of any given song in that country regardless of its release there. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it certainly isn't comprehensive to go through various articles and have an entire release history sourced by iTunes when in the case of things like Glassheart#Release history there is already a comprehensive listing supported by the record label. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first pass, this looks pretty close to promotion--thanks again for your work on it. I did have to do a fair amount of copyediting; please doublecheck my edits to be sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert any tweaks you disagree with. Anything I couldn't immediately resolve is listed here:

• "Lewis asked Tempah if should have the song" -- seems to be a missing word here

 Done, added "she could"

• "Sony Music "Trouble" a global priority, " -- seems to be a missing word here, too--"made"?

 Done, added "made"

• "it tells the story of love going bad and becoming destructive, aspects of which we can all relate to. It’s a deeply emotional and poignant song that I have a real connection to." -- this quotation appears to need citation

 Done, added a reference which already existed but was missed during copy editing sessions.

• "becoming eighth top-thirty single" -- seems to be a missing word here

 Done, added "her"

• "While filming the video, Lewis fell and injured her toe. During the scene which took place in the bedroom, Lewis fell when leaving the bed and was thought to have broken her toe" -- these two sentences appear to repeat themselves. Can the first one simply be cut? Or combined: "While filming the scene that took place in the bedroom ..."

 Done, resolved. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting to these so quickly! I'll try to take another look tonight or tomorrow, but this should be ready to promote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	See copyediting points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	<s.One quotation needs an inline citation (noted above).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	But see note above about redundant sentences
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trouble (Leona Lewis 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.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Trouble (Leona Lewis 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.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.leonalewismusic.com/gb/news/detail/leon1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123033721/http://www.gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon to http://gaonchart.co.kr/main/section/total/list.gaon
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6KgjzurAB?url=http://www.officialcharts.com/singles-chart/ to http://www.officialcharts.com/singles-chart/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/

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) 08:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trouble (Leona Lewis 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825001859/http://www.dawbell.com/news/leona_lewis_returns_with_her_brand_new_single_-_trouble_featuring_childish_ to http://www.dawbell.com/news/leona_lewis_returns_with_her_brand_new_single_-_trouble_featuring_childish_
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812164300/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/leona%20lewis to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/LEONA%20LEWIS/

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) 06:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]