Jump to content

Talk:Dance in the Dark/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm not sure if there is enough information and independent coverage on this song for it to be awarded GA. It is generally a well written article but I have identified some changes that should be made. In comparison to other Gaga articles such as "Speechless" it doesn't seem far off. Please resolve the comments below and I will look at the article again. =)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    On the whole there are no edit wars etc. Though there is some interesting discussion about genres and release. See below...
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Though the cover art has an insufficient caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


[edit]
  1. Per the discussion on the talk page New Wave Music is said to be inactive. However we are agreed that this song is a throwback to and is influenced by New Wave. Therefore New Wave should be removed from the infobox because the song's genre is not new wave but it can remain in the article body. Additionally the BBC called the song 'Machine RnB' so why is that not listed as a genre if new wave is?
    1. Just to note, I've been busy with other projects. Any additions to that genre field should be cleared. I'll be keeping an eye out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Seems like its best removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Link to MAC AIDS Fund should be removed from Background section as it is already linked immediately above in the introduction.
    1. Removed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Also consider removing "The song was initially planned to be released after "Telephone" but due to a dispute between Gaga and her record company, "Alejandro" was released instead" as this is already mentioned word-for-word the same in the section below.
    1. Lead summarises the article's major points. A label decision is a major point. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A comment about the overall critical reception should be added for example "Critics praised the song noting...."
    1. Again, this will be a repetition and not an accurate summary. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The 'Composition' section should be renamed to 'Music and themes' or 'Music and style' to reflect what is it about. The section is less about the musical composition and more about the lyrical composition.
    1. Done. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Also the comment "The song was initially planned to be released after "Telephone" but due to a dispute between Gaga and her record company, "Alejandro" was released instead"[4] is not supported by the reference provided. MTV said Gaga was "alleged to have rowed with her record label". Therefore you need to add the alleged part considering there are no other articles confirming these reports. Even better would be if you said According to MTV there was an alleged row between Gaga and her record label over which song to release next... etc.
    1. Agreed. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Slant Magazine → Slant Magazine (both in the reference [13] and article body)
    Comment Slant is not a published magazine, so it does not to be changed. TbhotchTalk C. 02:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only the positive part of the MusicOMH review was listed but the first part of the review says "Ah, the synths are back. After a stuttering intro of orgasmic groans it becomes a little bit Gaga-by-numbers, which is a shame given the standard of the early tracks." The 'monumental' chorus was said to salvage the song therefore the earlier part of the quote should have been used too.
    1. Included. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The 'Chart performance' and 'Charts' should be merged as both sections are very small and therefore their need for seperation is not justified.
    1. Breaks the prose flow of the article. Not necessary. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The last sentance of the 'Live performance' section, "The remix used in that performance is also used during one of the video interludes on her revamped Monster Ball Tour" is unsourced original research.
    1. No idea who added that crap. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per WP:Music Samples a song which is less than 5 Mintues long should have a music sample less than 30 seconds.
    1. Working on. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Finally when trying to work out where the single cover came from I found that the song was released in Belgium. A simple search of iTunes shows this and therefore it needs to be added into the article. A release history should be added and there might be scope to change the {{song infobox}} to {{single infobox}}. Furthermore if it was released in Belgium there is a chance that it could have been released in other European countries and so this would need to be investigated. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. its not released anywhere other than Belgium. I don't think we need a release history section for a promo release in one small market. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up (1)

[edit]

Ok once you have uploaded the music sample and somewhere it should be mentioned that the song was released as a a promotional single in Belgium (perhaps to the chart performance section turning this into 'Release and Chart Performance'?) I will read through and double check the sources etc. Please let me know when the article is ready to be checked again. I think its quite an easy GA. Well done. Lil-unique1 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah allright. Just waiting for the sample and downloading the software. The old version expired. Grrrr. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been checking and reviewing other GAs, the 'Chart Performance' section here is too small and is not justified. I cannot pass the album until the Belgium release is noted somewhere in the article and until the size of the chart performance section is rectified. Placing the two sentences under the 'Charts' section would make better sense else they should be merged somewhere in the article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? The merging is done as the noting of the iTunes Belgium release. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Result

[edit]

I can confirm that today on July 8, 2010 I am awarding the article GA status for containing broad coverage, which is written in excellent prose, to thoroughly explain the concept and performance of "Dance in the Dark". Well done! Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dance_in_the_Dark/GA2&oldid=1080612762"