Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)

Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Somegirls.jpg

Image:Somegirls.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

~~"Using a schaffel beat influenced by glam rock, "Some Girls" describes a pop singer who performs sexual favors in her efforts to achieve stardom."~~ I think you have to rephrase the first clause. It seems that there is a connection with the lyrics with the song using that beat. --Efe (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
"Some Girls" was written by Richard X and Hannah Robinson." I think it would be better to identify who are these people, and some names in the succeeding sentence(s).
- Fixed.
"such a sexually suggestive song" Curtis said this?
- No, fixed now.
"she locked herself in her car" Any clearer reason why she locked herself in the car?
- Added the reason.
"and later came up with a love song to Richard X" This is a bit unclear? Meaning she wrote a song to Richard X?
- Reworded.
~~"She performs fellatio on a man"~~ Is this her boyfriend or something?
- He might be, but it's not specifically indicated as such in the song or any sources. All that's been stated, as far as I can find, is that it's "a man promising to make her a star", as stated in the article.
~~"The song uses Richard X's icy synthpop sound"~~ Who said its icy? Icy is POV and unclear. --Efe (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word icy just indicates that it's closer to electropop than to, say, New Romantic synthpop. Since the sources don't directly mention electropop, stating that would be WP:OR. Multiple sources referred to it as icy synthpop, so there's no one person to be quoted.PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is your point of view. Many unfamiliar readers cannot understand what icy is. --Efe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not my point of view; it's a statement from multiple sources. If readers don't know that definition of icy (steely, frigid), then the Simple English Wikipedia version can use simpler terms. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it must be clear. Also, this is an encyclopedia. That word seems not. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I should hope that the word icy isn't an encyclopedia. What is unclear about the word? Considering two independent sources chose to describe the beat as icy, it seems an apt word to be used here. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe it would be better to use quotation marks there. At least you're safe. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That works for me. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

I think you need to add who are the reviewers instead of the publication/publisher alone.
- Added.
"behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme"" I think it has no significance, seems fancrufty.
- If it was more popular than every other song except for one, then what that one song was is significant. When there's so little information available about chart performance since it only charted in the British Isles, then it becomes very important to include details.
  - Readers wont actually care. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fancruft is something that would "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan" and whose "exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage". Not mentioning which song was more popular at the time would certainly harm the article's factual cover, and it's something that's easily understood by anyone, not just someone who has heard this song. Considering the entire section is only five sentences since the song seems only to have been released in the British Isles, removing what information is available would prevent it from being comprehensive. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fancruft in the sense that how the phrase is written failed to give significance. Just stating "behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme"" doesn't make sense, and if removed would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding.--Efe (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I added information about how the song's inability to top the chart tied in with its theme, so there should hopefully be no question about the information's relevance now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some Girls" was commercially successful in the United Kingdom. It debuted at number two on the UK Singles Chart, behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme".[13] The song was not able to top the chart, and it remained on the chart for twelve weeks." Seems ironic. It states successful but was not able to top the chart. Maybe you have to remove that part and rephrase it with “It has peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart, and remained on the chart for twelve weeks." Although that chart run is of little importance. Thoughts?
- Commercially successful doesn't mean or imply that it topped the charts, so I don't see the irony. Would it be best if I reworded it to indicate that it is tied with her debut single as her highest-charting song?
  - I suggest you remove that "but was not able to top the chart"? --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, that works. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source about the sales of the single since it achieved as one of the best-selling single in the UK. Certifications?
- The sales figures were there before I worked on the article, but none of the sources I could track down for it were reliable. BPI doesn't list any certifications for it. It supposedly sold 130,000 in the UK, so it wouldn't be certified with those sales since the UK requires higher sales for singles than for albums.
  - Ok. It just that readers will really inquire what was its sales since it received that award. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
”The song was moderately successful in Ireland” Moderately is POV and unclear.
- Anything that's not clear about that is resolved in the rest of the sentence, where the peak position is given.
  - No. That's how you see moderately. Others have different interpretation of what moderate is. Who said it was moderate? --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I reworded it so that it indicates that it was less successful in Ireland than in the UK. Since the peak position was lower and the time on the chart was the same, the chart data directly supports it now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
”The song's music video was written by Richard Curtis” The word written seems odd. It does not fit to the context. What actually Curtis did? The treatment of the video?
- The source just said he wrote it. Stating anything else would be speculation.
  - Ok. But its really odd. =) --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and in an interview with the NME, he stated, "That video is s**t [censorship preserved]." Insignificant?
- If you mean the [censorship preserved], that's the recommendation of Wikipedia:Profanity so that other editors don't assume that someone on Wikipedia censored it and change it to shit. If you mean the fact that Richard X said that, it seems worth noting that the person who wrote and produced the song had strong objections to how it was promoted.
  - But that part doesn't make sense. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What doesn't? I can't address the issue if you don't say whether it's the [censorship preserved] note or a perceived irrelevance of the quotation?
      - The insignificance of that quotes. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I added a sentence which should tie the quotes in better. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the infobox of the cover has no great significance. Also, its not just all about the cover since you mentioned there Cotto’s version.
- Is there a reason the infobox shouldn't be there? It's pretty standard when there's a section devoted to a cover version, such as in Layla, a featured article. Cotto's version is a remix of the cover version, which still falls under the scope of that section, especially since it's included on the official single.
  - Then you must add an infobox for the other cover/version. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No...the {{Infobox Single}} template is for singles, not mixes. There have only been two "Some Girls" singles released, so there's no reason to have more than two infoboxes. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The track listing is so "listy". Maybe the major releases only.
- Removed.
Refs 5, 17, 19 are not reliable.
- What about them is unreliable?
  - It doesn't pass per WP:RS. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you're going to respond to my question, please answer it. I asked what about them is unreliable, not whether or not they're unreliable. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to ask someone to check the reliability of these three sources. --Efe (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over two weeks; if there's still no reason to consider the sources unreliable, it seems like there's no reason to keep this article in review. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the information cited to Contactmusic and About.com now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I'm specking from past experience here. From what others have told me with my multiple GA/FA flame battle field assessments.

Number 1 and 3 are not considered terribly reliable on wikipedia. I've never come into contact with the middle one so wouldn't like to comment on that. — Realist² 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the other source, see here. Its largely unreliable because its a self-published site. Anyway, no more major issues to deal with. I'll pass the article to GA status and congrats. Nice work and good luck in taking this to another level. Just a note, if ever you have plans of taking this to FAC, check sources if they are reliable. Congrats again. --Efe (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that it was self-published, but it seemed to still be reliable since the guy who published it has been previously published in reliable third-party sources, so it should still pass WP:RS as long as there are no WP:BLP issues. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to scour the net to see if this person has been cited by a third-party reliable source but I have no time. Also, the stuff supported by this source isn't contentious. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful discussion

You might want to read this: User_talk:Ealdgyth#Reliability and User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Reliability. Its a bit late, sorry. --Efe (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]