Talk:This Groove

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the This Groove article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This Groove 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.
Review: August 21, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:35, 21 August 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:This Groove/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adog (talk · contribs) 00:56, 17 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 claim this review, likely to fully review by Thursday, August 17. Stay tuned, as I will include an informal review of the song that has no effect on the review itself. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing for Wikipedia, a dog described the song as "a blend of the late 1990s and early 2000s R&B we come to like", describing it further as "a choice of the best of both worlds". Though it was not particularly his favorite, the dog described the song as a "soft vocal performance with a hard-going track". The dog finished by highlighting the music video, "[Beckham] really likes rolling on the floor and walls and a lot of self-caressing, for some reason?" and signing off that "although not a groove by today's modern standards, it was a solid groove for its time". Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahah, good one! :D Alex ^{reach me!} 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following are suggestions for the editor-at-large to implement for grammar or sentence structure fixes on my first skim-through. If these are improper, not appropriate for the text, or not wanted, please disregard them with a short explanation:

Prose

Lead

The song was released on 29 December 2003 in the United Kingdom by Telstar Records, as a double A-side with "Let Your Head Go". might read better as Telstar Records released the song on 29 December 2003 in the United Kingdom as a double A-side with "Let Your Head Go".
The song is Beckham's last single release ... "released" instead of "release"?
Next sentence, should be "an R&B" instead of "a R&B".
... with one of them labeling it as one of the finest moments on Beckham's solo career. "on" to "of".
best selling to best-selling

Background and composition

... who would be given the opportunity to watch the videos to both songs and vote for their favorite ... "given the opportunity" could be "allowed", "of" instead of "to".
Drum programming was provided by Aziatic, while Benton also played keyboards, bass, and percussion on the song. might read better as Aziatic provided drum programming, while Benton also played keyboards, bass, and percussion on the song.

Reception

David Sinclair in the book Spice Girls Revisited: How The Spice Girls Reinvented Pop ... needs commas around "in the book Spice Girls Revisited: How The Spice Girls Reinvented Pop"

Book titles don't need commas as per the Manual of Style Alex ^{reach me!} 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2014, it was revealed that the single was Beckham's third biggest selling solo single in the region ... Specifying who it was revealed by may be important here.
... with the "This Groove" clip being described as being serious ... I would remove the first "being" here.
in order to to to.

Aditional comments or concerns

The article looks good as a glance, I will do a full-read through shortly. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead: An accompanying music video was directed by Andy Hylton, and depicts Beckham alone writhing around on a bed. When I picture "writhing" I think of pain or grief. In the video (and without knowledge of what the lyrics say), she appears neutral, or happy. I would consider maybe changing it to "rolling" or another synonym.
In "Background and composition": A Dash-produced track, "It's That Simple" featuring M.O.P., premiered on radio stations in July 2003, generating mixed reviews. They had plans to release the recorded material in the United States, but never eventuated. I am not getting how this relates to what I have read so far. This seems like an off-shoot of a Dash failure rather than what to do with this song or Beckham.
Same section: The disagreement as to which was the better track would be decided in the first instance by the viewers of Top of the Pops ... is kinda wordy. I would consider reducing it, maybe: The disagreement would be first mediated by viewers of Top of the Pops ....
Same section: Musically, "This Groove" is a mid-tempo R&B and hip hop song.[12][13][9] Numerical order of refs.
Same section: Biddy-bong-bing haha. I think we can omit this, it does not add to the passage.
In "Reception": ... R&B number";[4] Heart staff pointed ... makes me think the next quotes are part of the book, but are actually independent online reviews. I would put a period here and let the "Heart" be its own sentence starter.
In "Music video": back to back as back-to-back?
Same section: ... fashion but not so fashionable look runs a bit awkward and contradictory. I could see another reader reading this and not understanding what it means. I do not have access to the source, is there a better quote or paraphrase?
Next sentence: ... a sexier look when it is slowed down during post-production. I would rephrase to ... a sexier look when slowed down during post production.
Next sentence, same "writhing" comment above.
Same section, wikilink "nightie" to Nightgown?

Spot checks after this, and then a type of the full review. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Beckham signed a contract with Telstar Records and 19 Management, run by Simon Fuller," is not supported by this ref, but the other parts are of the same sentence. On the side bar, this source does explain it, but not "Management 19", it is just "19".

The actual name for Fuller's company is 19 Entertainment Alex ^{reach me!} 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"They had plans to release the recorded material in the United States, but never eventuated" The latter half is not supported by its ref. Also might be worth omitting anyhow from comment above.
"The two tracks were released as a double A-side single as Fuller and Beckham did not agree on which direction the album should take.[4]" Ref. 4 could be deleted here since the rest of the passage up until the quote is referenced by 4.
"Lyrically, it deals with phone sex, with Beckham stating, "Hi. It's me. You wouldn't believe what I'm doing. What are you doing?"; is not supported by this source. Source to match?

My mistake. The actual source for this line was the Sinclair book one. Alex ^{reach me!} 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well written + verifability

The article is well written aside from some grammar or sentence structure issues above. The article is supported by a list of reliable sources; coming from a variation. The reference layout is proper. I do have questions for some spot checks, as they are not supported by a source or source misplaced. Earwig said it was fine, nothing but common words.

Broadness + focus + neutral

The article is broad enough and focused on the subject. One instance worth addressing above. The article is neutral of the subject, poor Beckham. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images + stability

The article's images are relevant to the subject, and seem to be properly licensed. I will note for the infobox image, on the image's page, "Rationale of fair use for This Groove" should be placed atop of "Licensing". I like when the rationale is put in a summary box, but I suppose the answers here are valid. The article is stable, with no ongoing or active edit conflicts. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@11JORN: Alright, that completes my review. I will be around if you are ready for feedback or done with looking it over! Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adog thanks for the review, I think all issues have been addressed now, see comments above! Alex ^{reach me!} 22:01, 20 August 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.