Talk:Telepathy (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 12:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but do you think this is a good idea? — Calvin999 12:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Carbrera (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was involved in pointing out the reviews that you and others were involved in, and now you're reviewing one of mine. I'm grateful, but others have been waiting weeks, months. This has been up for a few hours. — Calvin999 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took up this review because I'm familiar with the subject matter and would like to give the article a decent review. If you have no other objections, I will proceed with it shortly. Carbrera (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The single cover image is too large; 300 x 300 px will do so add a non-free reduce to the file page
- Done — Calvin999 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The leading statement might be a bit incorrect; although Aguilera may have written songs in the past, she didn't write this one so "songwriter" should be removed
- It's not really because it's her occupation, she is a songwriter 'by trade' as well as a singer. It has no impact that she didn't write this song specifically. — Calvin999 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this means anything, but I own two albums that include work produced by Hermansen & Eriksen and they are generally credited without their middle names; I checked the sourcing and neither of them included "Storleer" nor "Erik" so I would remove them in all cases, including the previous infobox and in the prose below
- They are credited as such on Tidal in the source. — Calvin999
Should the producers of the track be listed here too?
- Done — Calvin999
You state the year several times, which isn't necessarily an issue, but to change things up a bit you could state "of the same year" or along those same lines
- Done — Calvin999
Perhaps include "accompanying" before "TV series"?
- I don't think it's necessary. — Calvin999
"respecitvely" → "respectively"
- Done — Calvin999
"As a thank you gift to her fans, radio and DJs for playing the track and making it number-one on the chart" → This sounds confusing to me as it is lacking a serial comma; I would suggest adding one after "radio"
- Done — Calvin999

Background and release

References #1/2 do not back up what is being said in the leading statement
- How so? Because both sources are as clear as day in what is in the first sentence here. — Calvin999 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodgers is credited as a featured artist and the theme of the series." → "and the theme of the series"?
- Yes, the disco theme. — Calvin999

Composition

"House of LaBeija" → Maybe link it to Pepper LaBeija here
- Done — Calvin999 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I believe the third paragraph is long enough (especially compared to the "Composition" section) to deserve a separate header under something like "Chart performance"
- Done — Calvin999 10:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably mention that it charted at #31 on Billboard's Twitter Top Tracks chart in August, although it shouldn't be listed under the "Charts" section
- I couldn't see it on her chart history or on a google search of her recent Billboard articles. — Calvin999 10:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Try this instead Carbrera (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Calvin999 09:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

The Get Down → Should be italicized
- Done — Calvin999 09:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard → Should be italicized
- Done — Calvin999
"Writing for Billboard" → Link Billboard since it has it's first instance here
- No because it's linked in the previous section. — Calvin999
You use "wrote that" three times in a row in the second paragraph, so I'd change it up a bit
- Done — Calvin999 09:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formats and track listings

From what I've seen on Wikipedia, its inclusion on an album is generally not listed here so I would recommend removing it
- I would normally agree, but given that this is from a various artist soundtrack album, and not a personal studio album, it is a standalone song in a sense. It is also not included on either of the other two formats, and is different from them. — Calvin999 10:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

Same thing regarding middle names as I previously mentioned in the lead/infobox above
- Same as above. — Calvin999 10:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Per WP:HAD, American publications use en-dashes in references, but some of them listed below use hyphens
- Done — Calvin999 10:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#2 – I accessed this source and I don't see anything regarding the credits and personnel of this track; all I see is Aguilera and Rodgers
- You said in the Background section you accessed it and that it shouldn't include their middle names? You go to the source, look at Telepathy, click the three dots on the right hand side of the bar, click track info. — Calvin999 10:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#3 – I don't believe this is a fairly reliable source
- Perhaps not for FA, but it's fine for GA. I've used it many times. — Calvin999
#5 – "iTunes Store" should be linked
- Done — Calvin999
#7 – Hyphen in title
- Done — Calvin999
#8 – Hyphen in title
- Done — Calvin999
#11 – Highly unreliable source
- It's not unreliable for a simple song review. There's nothing politcally bias or misinformed about that. It's only unreliable in the eyes of people who don't read the Mail. — Calvin999
#12 – Unlink Idolator
- Done — Calvin999 10:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
#14 – Billboard should be linked
- Done — Calvin999
#21/22 – Lists "Telepathy" being released as a digital single on August 12th
- Digitally from the album like everywhere else in the world it was released in. — Calvin999
Add "Category:2016 singles"
- Done — Calvin999
The categories should be in alphabetical order
- Done — Calvin999

ON HOLD to address the issues I brought up above. I have to point this out because I thought you were against nominating recently-release singles for GA so soon. In your own words, you suggested waiting six months for singles, although this song hasn't even been out for three. However, I have no problem with this because the article is well-written with good prose, is stable, and I'm sure any major changes (if any) that occur to this song's status as a single will be tackled by you since an article can become unstable at any time. I sincerely do admire your work as a Wikipedian who has made substantial edits to Music-related entries and I don't want this teeny matter to come between two editors since we do not see eye-to-eye. I hope nominating "Telepathy" will help you see through my viewpoint and realize that I'm not "confused" or incapable of "making any sense". I'm not that unusual. Please contact me when you have fixed any issues with this article. I'm here often and willing to collaborate. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'll get to the points later, but you're twisting what I said. I said waiting up to perhaps six months in the quotation that you link to, not at least six months. This was released as a single 3 months ago. You nominated song articles that had been out a few weeks that could still be released as a single. "Telepathy" won't drastically change now because there's nothing else that could be significantly added, it can't still be a potential single thus it isn't subject to big changes. I feel like you've reviewed this to prove a point of sorts, which is disappointing and not the way you should have gone about approaching me on resolving any issues you wanted to talk about. That's what my talk page, or even my email if you wanted it to be private, is for. — Calvin999 09:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am most definitely not reviewing this to prove a point. If you feel that way then that's your prerogative. There are still outstanding issues in the "Music video" section that you haven't touched. Please complete them so we can discuss the outcome of this article. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, but I don't see why you would raise those issues here when it has nothing to do with a review. — Calvin999 09:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the article and will be passing this article now. Congratulations! Carbrera (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks — Calvin999 09:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]