Talk:Wash All Over Me/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Infobox
[edit]- The official release date (with a note if necessary) would be useful.
- Template:Infobox song#Parameters advises use of Template:Start date.
- Done.
- Template:Infobox song#Parameters advises use of Template:Start date.
Pending
- The MetroLyrics link doesn't list Madonna and has "Ernest Brown III". The ISWC entry (T-917.500.708-6) is jumbled, but has some different names. This should be clarified and if necessary cited to a source.
Lead
[edit]- I would soften the blast of details (list of writers and producers) in the beginning. Maybe start with something about the song itself: "pop ballad ...", reminiscent of her earlier work, etc. Then ease into the nuts and bolts.
- Please correct second sentence.
- An early version of ... leaked onto, with its finalized version leaking in – Too many "leaks". Variety/alternate wordings would read better.
- Yes, agreed. Rephrased.
Background
[edit]- The leak came alongside twelve other tracks, in addition to rumored produced by – Awkward. Maybe "Twelve additional tracks were also leaked, rumored to be produced by".
- who would later agree to – "Would" doesn't really added anything: "who later agreed to"?
Composition and lyrical interpretation
[edit] Pending
- was produced by – needs citation. (this may be better in a "Recording and production" section with where and when recorded).
- Citation from the liner. And the section is named as Recording and composition which is standard.
- Song articles usually include when and where it was recorded. "2014" is included in the Infobox, but the details aren't included in the body of the article.
- You are venturing into WP:OR territory now. It is absolutely incorrect that all song articles include recording locations. This one does not mention the recording location anywhere, just the year, which came from the leak of the final version and is noted in the previous section. —IB [ Poke ] 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are several problems with your response: 1) Wikipedia:No original research has no application here, since I am not attempting or suggesting to add unsourced or improperly synthesized material to the article; 2) I didn't say or imply that all song articles include anything. The guideline for Template:Infobox song#Parameters "Recorded" includes "This field should include details on when and where the song was recorded." So, it is an accepted practice to include recording locations in articles; 3) The last sentence doesn't make sense – are you saying there are no reliable sources for the recording location or date? The only dates mentioned are in connection to the leaks – date leaked or released is not the same as the date it was recorded. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, your wording continuously imply to add information when there is no existence of it. The recording of the final version was leaked in December 2014 and hence 2014 is added as the year in the parameter. Where it was recorded? We donot have that info and hence it is not added. How difficult it is for you to understand? —IB [ Poke ] 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- There are several problems with your response: 1) Wikipedia:No original research has no application here, since I am not attempting or suggesting to add unsourced or improperly synthesized material to the article; 2) I didn't say or imply that all song articles include anything. The guideline for Template:Infobox song#Parameters "Recorded" includes "This field should include details on when and where the song was recorded." So, it is an accepted practice to include recording locations in articles; 3) The last sentence doesn't make sense – are you saying there are no reliable sources for the recording location or date? The only dates mentioned are in connection to the leaks – date leaked or released is not the same as the date it was recorded. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are venturing into WP:OR territory now. It is absolutely incorrect that all song articles include recording locations. This one does not mention the recording location anywhere, just the year, which came from the leak of the final version and is noted in the previous section. —IB [ Poke ] 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Song articles usually include when and where it was recorded. "2014" is included in the Infobox, but the details aren't included in the body of the article.
- Citation from the liner. And the section is named as Recording and composition which is standard.
- further contributed to the track by foreseeing drum programming, catered to its engineering – "By foreseeing" and "catered to" seem odd choices. How about just "contributed the drum programming ..." and "participated in the engineering and mixing". (see preceding note).
- which were ultimately used – unsure what the point is here. Are other interim steps also described? (see earlier note)
- No point, removed.
Pending
- that contains the use of a "baroque piano" over ... – the quoted phrases can be paraphrased, otherwise they should be attributed.
- It is attributed.
- Direct quotations should be attributed, that is, the author should be named in the text. see MOS:QUOTATIONS.
- Meh. Rephrased. —IB [ Poke ] 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Direct quotations should be attributed, that is, the author should be named in the text. see MOS:QUOTATIONS.
- It is attributed.
Critical reception
[edit]Credits and personnel
[edit]- Management – not sure that this is of interest/necessary. o/b/o?
- We generally list the management details and o/b/o means on behalf of. I think I can include it in the first one.
- This is not actually management – it's a list of the songwriters' publishing companies. This may serve a legal purpose on the album release, but why is it necessary here (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)? (Also, the first use of an abbreviation should be be linked, e.g., a.k.a., [sic], or written out)
- Actually you are correct, this does not serve any purpose. I have removed it.
- This is not actually management – it's a list of the songwriters' publishing companies. This may serve a legal purpose on the album release, but why is it necessary here (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists)? (Also, the first use of an abbreviation should be be linked, e.g., a.k.a., [sic], or written out)
- We generally list the management details and o/b/o means on behalf of. I think I can include it in the first one.
- Links to common terms such as vocals, songwriter, etc. are not necessary. The producers and writers are already mentioned. What about the musicians?
- Correct, will remove them, but when we write the credits, we write the full ones as listed in the booklet/website. The musicians working on the track are also listed. —IB [ Poke ] 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently, Mike Dean is the only musician and guitar should be added (see album credits). The instrumentation tends to get lost among all the producers/writers/technicians – this may be formatted better (following the album credits).
- We list the credit generally in terms of the importance of the production, in this case Madonna, being followed by the producers and songwriters and then the instrumentation.
- Apparently, Mike Dean is the only musician and guitar should be added (see album credits). The instrumentation tends to get lost among all the producers/writers/technicians – this may be formatted better (following the album credits).
- Correct, will remove them, but when we write the credits, we write the full ones as listed in the booklet/website. The musicians working on the track are also listed. —IB [ Poke ] 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Pending
- The reference for this section should follow the same citation format as the rest of the article, that is, using footnotes without adding "Management and personnel adapted ..." to the body. Also, the info appears to be from the album liner notes, which should be noted if so.
- No. General format to note where the credits has been adapted from, and in this case its from Madonna's official website. The Rebel Heart album booklets never listed any credits so I will not list something factually incorrect. —IB [ Poke ] 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
References
[edit]External links
[edit] Pending
- see infobox songwriter note.
- I see you've removed MetroLyrics, but added Slant in which the videos are disabled (copyvio?). There is only a one-sentence mention of "WAOM" and it does not appear to add anything.
- I see you've removed MetroLyrics, but added Slant in which the videos are disabled (copyvio?). There is only a one-sentence mention of "WAOM" and it does not appear to add anything.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- A PD image and/or quote box may help break up the text.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- @Carbrera: please respond. —IB [ Poke ] 09:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Addressed all the issues except MetroLyrics. Have to check that. —IB [ Poke ] 11:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- In several instances, you state "We generally list ...", "We list the credit ...", "which is standard", "when we write the credits, we write the full ones", etc. What are you referring to? These are not covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content or other guidelines or policies (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- By we of course I mean editors, and the general structure in music articles. —IB [ Poke ] 13:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @IndianBio: Yes?? Carbrera (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: no worries, I addressed the concerns. —IB [ Poke ] 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ojorojo: what is pending exactly with the article now? —IB [ Poke ] 11:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: no worries, I addressed the concerns. —IB [ Poke ] 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- @IndianBio: Yes?? Carbrera (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- By we of course I mean editors, and the general structure in music articles. —IB [ Poke ] 13:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- In several instances, you state "We generally list ...", "We list the credit ...", "which is standard", "when we write the credits, we write the full ones", etc. What are you referring to? These are not covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Article content or other guidelines or policies (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Addressed all the issues except MetroLyrics. Have to check that. —IB [ Poke ] 11:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Carbrera#Your GA nomination of Wash All Over Me:
Concerns marked "
Pending". I'll do the ref review after they are addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Can you take a look again? —IB [ Poke ] 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Nominating includes: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources". Several issues are being sidestepped and continuing with the review may be unproductive. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do not imply that I'm not familiar with the song or the subject matter when you don't know my association with the parent album article. You review is actually the one which is unproductive and responding to them is a waste of time for me. —IB [ Poke ] 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ojorojo: Hey! Just checking in to see what's cooking with the review! I see there's some confusion over the nominating process. IndianBio is very informative and active when it comes to Madonna-related articles and topics, so dealing with him is of no concern to me. I'm willing to take any action necessary to complete this review. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Hello, I was wondering why you were not involved in this.[1] Normally, GA reviews are undertaken with the listed nominator, which is how I approach them. Anyway, let's wrap it up. Please review the comments regarding the article content so far, especially those marked "Pending". Then the refs can be reviewed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have already responded to all of them and you have seen them. So get on with the review and stop being so difficult. —IB [ Poke ] 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Hello, I was wondering why you were not involved in this.[1] Normally, GA reviews are undertaken with the listed nominator, which is how I approach them. Anyway, let's wrap it up. Please review the comments regarding the article content so far, especially those marked "Pending". Then the refs can be reviewed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ojorojo: Hey! Just checking in to see what's cooking with the review! I see there's some confusion over the nominating process. IndianBio is very informative and active when it comes to Madonna-related articles and topics, so dealing with him is of no concern to me. I'm willing to take any action necessary to complete this review. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Do not imply that I'm not familiar with the song or the subject matter when you don't know my association with the parent album article. You review is actually the one which is unproductive and responding to them is a waste of time for me. —IB [ Poke ] 13:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Nominating includes: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources". Several issues are being sidestepped and continuing with the review may be unproductive. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It appears all queries have been responded to. @Ojorojo: @IndianBio: pinging both of you for clarification and further checking if necessary
. Carbrera (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC).
There are too many misrepresentations here. I cannot in honesty say that the criteria have been met. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I cannot honestly say your review was a joke or not. —IB [ Poke ] 19:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
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.