Talk:Climax (song)/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

Add a caption for the artwork.
Use the release date and duration length templates, like on "S&M" for example.
Unlink Future Garage, no point linking it if there is no article. Or Sub-link?

Why would a caption be necessary? The context is clear to readers: it's the single's cover. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The entire lead needs a re-write. It's quite short as well. I don't mind doing this for you?

Added a bit, but could you be more specific as to why? They're usually 2 to 4 paragraphs. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

You have written that it is an R&B and Future Garage song in the info box, but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article? From what I can see, "Climax" is an Electronic song.

I reverted the IP who added that. Dan56 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

Put release info into the Background and recording section.
Critical reception comes before Chart performance, which means you also need to create a Chart performance section. Two lines for a song which charted on 16 charts is nowhere near enough. Talk about North America, Europe and the United Kingdom. For the US, lay more emphasis on the Dance and R&B chart as it did so well, and same for UK R&B.
Critical response sub-section also needs re-writing.

Release and reception seem to go hand-in-hand, and since there's no structure guideline for WP:SINGLE like there is at MOS:ALBUM, I organized it chronologically.

Why should it come before? Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of sentences. I shouldnt embellish beyond its performance on prominent charts if it wasnt that big a hit. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically needs to be rewritten? Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

The first paragraph could also do with some copy-editing.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

Remove this section; it's redundant because that is the only version.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Both tables should be marked up according to WP:ACCESS so that the Chart column is shaded, like on "Glassheart" for example. (Same for the Release history table).
It should be Hot 100, then Hot Dance, then Hot R&B, then Pop. Alphabetise.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

Why is only digital linked?

Linked other formats. Dan56 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

A lot of the references, if not most, have either missing dates, accessdates, WP:SHOUT issues, missing publishers or incorrectly formatted.

No they dont. I understand the previously templated single chart citations (which are designed that way), but every other citations is fine. What's the problem? Dan56 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I interupt, but as I stated previously I have concerns about whether this article should be nominated for GA. First, it needs pretty much copy-editing as the reviewer (Aaron) pointed, second more information can be added (as I saw Climax on a lot lot lot year end best songs of 2012), third the references need work too. Simply the nomination is premature. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article does need a lot of work, it just doesn't look finished. I looked at the history and you haven't really done much to it. Just removed a bit here and add a bit there (aside from a large removal from the Music video section). I would suggest that you look at Rihanna/Beyonce/Leona GA's/FA's to see how things should set out and formatted. This, combined with Tomica's opinion, means that I am failing the article. Seriously copy-edit the article, leave it for a few days, look over it again, then get someone who is very familiar with GAN to look over it too. More effort is needed. AARON• ^TALK 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles arent guidelines. Dan56 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you specify your concerns instead of pointing to articles you've "formatted". You cant fail this article if nothing meets WP:GAQF, and you cant impose your personal criteria, along with that of someone you often edit with. You're fail was premature. All you did was say "rewrite this" and "this should be here" instead, not responding to anything from me, here or when I fixed concerns at the article (WP:RGA#Mistakes to avoid in reviews) You cited nothing from WP:WIAGA. If you're still clinging to this, then this should get a second opinion or another reviewer. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bombard me with wikilinks. GAN is not a peer review, and I would have had to have basically written out each line for you to change for several sections. No, those articles are not official guidelines, but they are very good indicators as to what a GA should look like, hence why they passed. I was writing my final conclusion before I saw that you had replied, so don't say that I read them then failed, because that's not true. We were obviously editing this page at the same time. I'm not "clinging" to anything. To be honest, I've completely forgot about that. AARON• ^TALK 16:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then why not give me some time to respond? I was offline until only a couple of hours ago. Dan56 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again, why does the "critical response" section need a rewrite? Dan56 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only reviewed it a couple of hours ago, and you made a response 25 minutes after I finished. I never said the article was on hold. If you can't see all the mistakes in the references, then that says it all. I tried being constructive and pointed out what is wrong, but if you aren't going to listen, then I have nothing else to say here. It is not 100% down to me to list every single problem, otherwise I might as well just do it myself, which I can't do as a reviewer. Some initiative is also needed on your part. CR needs re-writing because it is full of quotes and for some reason there is a one line sentence by itself. There is no flow. AARON• ^TALK 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the actual issues. It's a critical response section, it's gonna be quotes from critics and their reviews. If you want to use GA/FA articles, then see Sons_of_Soul#Critical_response. What mistakes are there here? Dan56 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Dan, you should really calm down and take this seriously. I will take another example that is not work of Aaron or me, for example look at "Dance for You" by Beyonce. The song was not even a single, meaning there was 5 times smaller ammount of information. Also, having apart of the available information "Climax" is not even ready, because some of the sections are mess and the references... they need a lot of work. I agree with Aaron, that this should be failed, re-worked and re-nominated then. Until then, this is not ready for GA. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the sections are a mess and the references...", yeah another "messed up" statement. I already know you agree with him. And not every article needs to needs to go into unnecessary detail like "Dance for You". Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "unnecessary detail", rather comprehesivness, something that "Climas" lacks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences like "made available on the deluxe edition of 4, which could only be purchased at Target Corporation until January 2012", "writer of Rap-Up magazine described the remix as 'amazing',", details about previews of the music video, and "Although initially planned to debut... changed to November 25 ... However, it premiered..." arent unnecessary detail? In that article's chart performance section, "continued its ascencion on the Hot R&B..." is chart trajectory, and an airplay chart is not a prominent chart. And if "Climax" has too many quotes in its reception section... Dan56 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant here, though. I realize I didnt edit or add with the zeal of Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Rihanna, etc. articles. I nominated this article because I considered it sufficient for GA. It shouldnt have been closed less than five hours after the review started. Even in cases where an article meets the criteria for a quick-fail, reviewers can give a few days for editors to respond to concerns, provide a more detailed review, or withdraw altogether (WP:RGA#First things to look for) I still dont see the issue with the sources; consistent formatting? If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's good enough. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart of everything you said above, I still see a lot of prose issues. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get them fixed once someone tells what they are. Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste of time. ~~Failed it twice, didnt even cite GAN criteria once.~~ Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I failed it once, and you reverted and put a Second Opinion template there. You are not allowed to put that there, that is for the reviewer only and for if I wanted a second opinion. Turns out, Tomica gave a second opinion earlier by his own free will. Get your facts right. AARON• ^TALK 18:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. What a waste of time. Didnt respond to anything I cited above. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to several, you just haven't listened. This GAN is now closed. AARON• ^TALK 18:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.