Jump to content

Talk:Lips Are Movin/GA3

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 11:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be reviewing this article. editorEهեইдအ😎 11:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: Looking forward to it.--MaranoFan (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorE: All of the ones in Second comments right now have been done.--MaranoFan (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First comments
  • "co-written with" the "with" is unneeded
  • "noting" --> this word should be replaced with something like "highlighting" or "praising"

More to come editorEهեইдအ😎 11:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second comments

Not too badly written, but I'm noticing some WP:Manuel of Style issues that could easily fixed.

  • First, and this is mainly the case in the chart performance section, numbers ten or lower should be present in word format. (7 --> seven, if you will).
  • I also notice names of publications that are linked two times, such as Billboard and MTV News. I think it's also a MOS guideline that when in prose, the publication name should only be linked the first time it is mentioned in the article.
  • Yahoo! --> Yahoo! Music

Sorry. I've been a little busy with other things, but here are some more things:

  • "It was written in eight minutes by Kevin Kadish and Meghan Trainor; Kadish produced the song too" While I understand GA doesn't exactly look for brilliant prose, I don't find this written too well. More something like "It was written in eight minutes by Kevin Kadish and Meghan Trainor and produced by the former" editorEهեইдအ😎 17:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musically, "Lips Are Movin" was likened to Christina Aguilera's "Candyman" (2007)" Since this is seemingly only one source comparing it to the Christina Aguilera, you might wanna credit the writer of the source for this comparison in prose. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canadian Hot 100 2015 year end position at 34 needs to be added to the chart list. The song was also on this chart year-end list and this year-end list, so add those to the chart list as well. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critical reception of this article could be a lot better. Here are some suggestions:
    • The Daily Express and USA Today sentences should be combined or shortened into something like "Some reviewers noted that the song made Trainor from a one-hit wonder to a successful pop artist: one of them included a reviewer for USA Today, who called it much better than "All About That Bass""
    • You should start the last paragraph with "In more mixed opinions,"
    • Are there any opinions of the songs from reviews of the Title album you could include? editorEهեইдအ😎 19:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed so far. Will only address further commentary after you have placed the article "on hold". Thanks so much for this review.--MaranoFan (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I have some more comments:

  • "It reached number 50 in its third week of release" Does this mean three weeks after the single was released or its third week on the chart? Clarification is need here
  • Back to the critical reception section. The part "who stated that the song took Trainor from being a one-hit wonder to a "new breed of pop star"" should be removed since it's already establish beforehand that she wrote this fact.

Sorry. I've just been more busy... anyway, here are some more comments: There are numerous minor cite formatting issues that need to be fixed before I can pass this or continue the review:

  • The formatting for iTunes citations are inconsistent; I'd changed the formatting of ref 59 to make it similar to that of refs 14 and 15
Because the first 2 are archived from the original and the last one is the real site. Nothing to be done here.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean that. I mean the that the source is presented at " iTunes" in ref 59 and in refs 14 and 15 it is presented as "iTunes Store", also without italics. The "iTunes (U.K.) - Music -" part of the title in ref 59 should also be removed. That was I meant. Sorry if I wasn't specific enough.
Fixed.
  • The billboard cites are missing publishers ("Prometheus Global Media"), so is the first reference ("Northern and Shell Media"), the Baltimore citation ("Tribune Publishing"), the US Weekly cite ("Wenner Media, LLC") the VH1 ref ("Viacom"), the Idolator refs ("SpinMedia"), the MTV News cites (also "Viacom")
I have to disagree with this one since it is an emerging trend that publishers for sources that have articles aren't listed.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not be an issue the GA criteria takes in, but just because its "an emerging trend" in articles doesn't automatically make it follow the WIkipedia guidelines. I'd recommend fixing the problem I said just in case. editorEهեইдအ😎 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Talk That Talk (Rihanna song) both FAs follow this format. Infact it was brought up during the reassessment of this article that the publishers should be removed.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, OK, we'll go with it editorEهեইдအ😎 03:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the source in ref 50 does actually say the author of the article. Also, in ref 18, don't credit "Billboard Staff" as an author, its not really the writer of the article. Just remove it if it doesn't credit the real writer.
  • For refs 93 and 96, don't SHOUT the title of the articles even if they're formatted that way.

editorEهեইдအ😎 02:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, some more comments:

  • A WP:MOS style issue needs to be addressed: Once you mention the full name of a person, you can only use his/her last name for mentions of him/her for the rest of the article.
@EditorE: I couldn't find any instance of this. Can you point me to it? Otherwise, all addressed.--MaranoFan (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem; Actually, the only one I see right now is that James Cowan" is mentioned twice in prose. I thought I saw another author name that was mentioned twice in the article, but I can't find it now. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorE: All addressed.--MaranoFan (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and peaked at number three on Billboard's Euro Digital Songs." Citation needed, even if already cited in the chart table.
  • Ref 21: "Ben Rayner" --> "Rayner, Ben"

editorEهեইдအ😎 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow pace of the review. You're doing alright so far, but I just wanna take my time with this. Anyway, a few more comments

  • "low-quality audio" do you mean a sample or a low-quality audio file of the entire track?
  • Unless you're listing charts, you should NEVER format United Kingdom as "U.K." in prose per WP:MOS
  • "it was announced that instead of "Title", "Lips Are Movin" would be officially released to contemporary hit radio in the U.S. on October 21, 2014, as Trainor's second single.[" You should probably better clarify that "Title" was initially intended to be released as a radio single that day, before it was decided that "Lips Are Movin" would be released instead.
@EditorE: Again, all addressed.--MaranoFan (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lips_Are_Movin/GA3&oldid=715205642"