Talk:Tell Me (Mel B song)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 04:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will take on this review, listen overnight, and complete this review by Tuesday, August 29. A storm is brewing near me. Stay tuned! Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for Wikipedia, a dog felt the 2000s R&B on this track from its outset, stating the "disjointed supposed chords in descending tone set the mood for Mel B's feelings towards her husband". The dog continued, commenting that like typical pop songs on romance in today's modern landscape, Mel B's rendition was "on point" for her time, putting the message across clearly and upfront, giving "Gulzar [his] needed dose of reality". The dog closed out the song review, mentioning that although this song would likely be found in his playlist from way beyond, it was a "bygone for its era", likely to stay in the past because Mel B has moved on to bigger and better things. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good one! Not my fave track of hers tho. Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again. To restate my reviewing guidelines, these are suggestions or corrections for the editor-at-large during my run-through of the article for grammar or sentence structure. If you do not agree with the suggestions, or believe they are improper or inappropriate for the text, feel free to disregard them with a comment:

Prose

Lead

It was written by the singer herself in collaboration ... runs a bit awkward. I would simply state: The song was written by Mel B in collaboration ...
"Tell Me" is an R&B song whose lyrics are directed at the singer's former husband Jimmy Gulzar. Needed comma pause before "Jimmy".
For the next sentence, I would remove highlighting the Guardian here in the lead to not single them out and no cause weight towards their negative review against the positive ones. I would reword it to The track received generally positive reviews from music critics.
...; it has sold a total of 109,000 copies in the region as of June 2017, ... Is there a way to future-proof this statistic by chance, or provide a more up-to-date version.

This was the last sales update, I'm afraid. Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Me" also peaked at number seven in Scotland and reached the top 20 in Belgium's both Flemish and Walloon regions I would omit "both" here as it may be redundant and create a more wordy sentence.
A music video was directed by Nigel Dick and depicts Melanie B accompanied by her dancers to possibly Nigel Dick directed a music video that depicts Melanie B accompanied by her dancers.

Background and composition

cerimony to ceremony.
... "like a documentary of all the things that I’ve been going through in the last two years". Has a curly apostrophe when straight are used.
... the former was also in charge for the music production ... "of" instead of "for".
Musically, "Tell Me" is an R&B song, which features a ... I would remove the comma here, no needed pause.
Since there are instances where the Wikipedia article is quoting an article featuring quotes from the singer, the quotations in our article need double quotes. I would use {{" '}} and {{' "}} templates.

What do you mean? I am citing only her quotes, not other parts from the text. Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I thought you used more than what was quoted in some instances (like here "She said" vs "She explained"). You are right. If it is only what she said, then one set of quotations is good; if it is more, then double is required. Reading up on the Chicago Manual of Style textbook. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

In June 2017, it was revealed by the Official Charts Company ... might work better as In June 2017, the Official Charts Company revealed ....
Same sentence, ... Melanie B's third biggest selling solo single in the region, with a total of 109,000 copies sold. I would put a dash between "biggest" and "selling" and remove "a total of" as it may be redundant.

Promotion

According to the singer, Dick did not want to describe the song in the video, instead portraying her and her dancers "enjoying [themselves]" For the first instance of "her" here, I would replace it with "Melanie B" for better clarity into the paragraph.
As the video progresses, it shows her in many different settings, and as the song starts to fade she is seen sitting where the first dance took place staring off-camera. Comma before "fade".
Highlighting the above sentence, is there anything of note from reliable sources about the music video beyond the video progressing? Anything more about the women/dancers enjoying themselves, or what action is on screen that readers might find of note?

Unfortunately not. I tried my best to find sources for the video but they were almost non-existent. Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

1, missing author parameter.
16, "MELANIE B" to "Melanie B".
33, "NigelDick.com." should be "Nigel Dick". Not sure if Wikipedia has a parameter to specify if it is a personal website, if so, I would do that; if not, I belive his name should just be the publisher.

The first read-through was good. Onto spot checks and possible further checks. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments or concerns

Spot check: For the sentence starting "In March 1998, ..." this source does verify most of the content, except that Mel B. met Gulzar while on tour. Source to match?

Tour bit removed Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: Next sentence, source only states the name of the child to be "Phoenix Chi", absent of "Gulzar".
Spot check: "It was released as in the United Kingdom on 25 September 2000, by Virgin Records." is not supported by this source. It does state Virgin Records released it, but not the exact date. It is worth noting that the publication was on 23 September, two days before 25 September which means it may not have been released on that day. Source to match?

The title says singles released "For Week Starting 25, 2000", a Monday, the day records used to go on sale in the UK Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a valid explanation. I am not a music-research person, so having this explanation here will be good for a curious reader. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: "The lyrics of the song are directed at her former husband Gulzar: ..." is supported by its source here. However, the source does not cite the lyrics used in this passage. Needs a source to match because it is quoted, likely from this source in the article.
Spot check: In "Background and composition" and "Reception", Nigel Parker should be Nigel Packer.
Spot check: "Tell Me" received positive reviews from music critics. should be "Tell Me" received generally positive reviews from music critics. because there are negative/contrasting reviews.

Well written + verifiability

The article is well written with some minor grammar or sentence structure corrections or suggestions. The article is written in mind with a general manual of style. The article cites a variety of reliable sources, with the reference layout looking good outside of some minor inconsistencies. The article has some spot check issues worth addressing, and in terms of copyright, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing, the article looks good from Earwig's reporting. All is good otherwise. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article has broadness in its content and a good focus on its subject. Only a minor note in the promotion section. The article is neutral towards its subject, with some minor suggestions to help with due weight. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

The article has relevant images that help illustrate the song's subject. The article is stable, with no active or ongoing edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 03:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@11JORN: Hello! The article review is complete. Some issues need attention above, but this article looks at a pass when corrections are made. Great job! Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adog check my comments above, thanks for the review. Alex ^{reach me!} 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@11JORN: Alright, passing! Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (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.