Talk:Flatline (Mutya Keisha Siobhan song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article is short so I'll take the review as quick as possible — Simon (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The singles chronology makes me confused, "Soul Sound" was credited as Sugababes, so why does it appear here? — Simon (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutya Keisha Siobhan is the first lineup of Sugababes, just with a different name. "Soul Sound" was that lineup's last single.

Lead

which consists of the original lineup of the group Sugababes --> Is this really necessary? Because there was already a link to the group

I don't quite understand this comment, sorry.

The Mutya Keisha Siobhan band already has its wikilink, so I think that the "which consists of the original lineup of the group Sugababes" is not necessary here — Simon (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree — as it is their first single, it will be interesting for readers to realize that this group was the first lineup of the Sugababes, as they may not access the group's page. It is vital information here; maybe not for later singles' articles. prism △ 12:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

who also produced it, It was released --> Typo

Just changed capital letter.

the reception was not so positive, resulting in the song charting at a low number --> I don't think the low chart position is because of the "reception was not so positive"

Removed.

Composition

At the length of three minutes and fifty-one seconds --> I'd prefer "Having a length of"

Fixed

Charts

Add "!scope="row"" for the charts per WP:ACCESS

This isn't needed here though, as they are Single chart templates. In the Your Body article, it also has it like this.

The rest: Looks good! — Simon (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my issues have been addressed all, so I will promote this to GA status. Good work overall! — Simon (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other non-involved user comments

Hi Prism I noticed this had been promoted and you've done a good job. However, I would like to suggest a few more (quite necessary changes):

There referencing could do with improving tbh. Digital Spy as a work, put the publisher should mention Hearst Media, as they own Digital Spy and as is done with other GA articles.
Done (not done for periodicals though, see cite web template)
Also, I removed So So Gay is it not a reliable source for GAs, as far as I can tell, its editors are not qualified and there is no editorial board to vet articles before they're published.

Thank you!

The phrase "contemporary music critics" is redundant → "music critics" will suffice.

Done

"Commercially the song charted at a low number 50" is verging on puffery - readers are intelligent enough to work out whether 50 is low or high on the charts for themselves, and it reads awkwardly to say the lowest position before the highest position. Also, there's a difference between chart performance and commercial performance. Consider stating "Upon release, "Flatline" debuted at number 14 on the Irish Singles Chart however, on the UK Singles Chart it only managed to debute and peak at number fifty".

Done

Also, the phrase "rave reviews" is a little puffery → could do with sticking to phrases such as universal positive reviews or critical acclaim, the term rave reviews is quite over the top.

Done

You should mention were the song was promoted in the lead section, considering the lead is so small, i.e. mention GAY at Scala and the Sacred Three Tour.

Done

Also, there's over sectionalisation in the promotion section. The lyric video doesn't need its own heading. Almost every single released recieves an official lyric video. Also, the heading "visuals" is not required. Its overdoing the whole navigation thing giving how small the sections are. I would merge lyric video with live performances to make a promotion section and have a separate music video section - this would be more inline with other GA articles.

Thanks for taking the time to read. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 10:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]