Talk:Shine (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Azealia911 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Full review coming soon. Azealia911 _talk 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I don't see the necessity or advantages of adding the year to a sentence after each mention of a work. Perhaps beneficial for contextual significance having the film's year mentioned, but listing each year the two collaborated in the background section feels like unnecessary padding.

Done I would say that it's extreme to calling padding, but I have removed them all.

Infobox and lead

What exactly qualifies this song to be regarded as a promotional single? It appears to simply be a song that leaked and then got a lyric video.

Done It is just a song. The promotional single identification was there before my edits and I forgot to change it.

Remove (on YouTube)

Done

Why is the label parameter filled in? If the song was never officially released, there was never a label to release it.

Done

Unlink both Stefani and Williams in the writer parameter.

Done

"Stefani initially disagreed with Williams' literal approach to the song's lyrics" it would be helpful to be given some context on the lyrics of the song before this sentence, it feels like something's left out.

Done This is something only for the lead though so it would seem odd to make it too detailed as it should just be an indication of what is in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I'm sure that you could transfer some of the sources used in both this section and the critical reception section to create some kind of prose on the song's composition.

Actually, I do not see how that would be possible. A majority of the sources describe the song either 1) very vaguely or 2) the exact same so I would think that a separate section for the song's composition would be too short, too repetitive, and unnecessary as the "Background" section already covers pretty much all the information about the song. I could change the section title to "Background and composition" if that makes it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Vibe is presented in italics.

Done

References

Some general comments on the way you've handled the references, I'll nit-pick after I see what you do with these comments; Fix any violations of WP:NDASH, don't use 'publisher' when you should use 'work' (EG, Rolling Stone, NME, Daily Express, Entertainment Weekly, are all works), avoid SHOUTING IN TITLES.

Done Removed the shouting in the titles and changed most of the "publisher" to "work" Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Remove the two official site links.

Done

The YouTube video link has a template, {{YouTube}}.

Done

Add a {{MetroLyrics song}} template below the YouTube template.

Done

@Azealia911: All your comments have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-review comments

Passing Azealia911 _talk 21:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2016 (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.