Wikipedia:Peer review/On the Floor/archive1

On the Floor

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… because it has a good wealth of information. Jennifer Lopez has not had a single this successful since 2006, and she's nothad as much press attention or coverage since then either. While there is an abundance of sources, I've tried my best to use what's available to make a detailed and coherent article that reflects all aspects of the song. However, its evident that the information is perhaps a little messy and I'm aware that the prose quality is not great. I've had a go at copy ediitng the music video and chart performance sections in addition to the introduction. The other sections have been looked at but its difficult to notice errors in something you have written. Would be appreciated if people could point out suggested improvements before the article is readied for GA.

Thanks, — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing – I will be taking a print out of the article and go through the prose. So many erroneous stuff crop up from that. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The song served as one of two promotional singles for Love? --> Not clear which song you are referring to.
It also interpolates elements... --> "On the Floor" doesnot interpolate, it incorporates
is a song by American recording artist Jennifer Lopez and Latino rapper Pitbull --> You have to make clear that Pitbull is in featured credit, otherwise it will contradict with the infobox as a duet.
and deciding that after more than ten years, a new label was required --> Seems unnecessary fro lead
In the second para there is quite a bit of repetition of the phrase "the/a song". Try to replace them at some places with the actual song name.
the millennium hit --> no need for hit, POV pushing case.
on the tenth season of hit U.S. reality show, American Idol --> again, no "hit" please
You need some reshuffling in the second para. First talk about the release, then move on to critical and reception. At present its "fan reception - release - critical reception", which is untrue.
Critics agreed that the song was a welcome comeback for Lopez, combining the best elements of her previous songs with exotic flavors to make a current-sounding single --> This is already mentioned in terms of "If You Had My Love" and "Waiting for Tonight"
to make an impact on the Pop Airplay chart --> Wikilink to the correct chart (Mainstream Top 40)
and became her first song from Love? to receive airplay recognition after neither "Fresh Out the Oven" or "Louboutins" (2009), the previous lead single, were recognized by U.S. radio --> Redundant when you say its her first single since 2007 to receive airplay love.
As a result, Kaoma's single "Lambada" charted at number two on the Billboard World Digital Chart, over two decade after its release --> Rephrase, at present it implies as if OTF's certifications led to the Kaoma song's popularity
final ending from a choice of three alternative endings --> Consecutive usage of ending..
and in general commenting that the video was a homage to the earlier career of Lopez. --> Again a repetition.
Overall, tone down the usage of words like "critical, critics" etc to eliminate the constant scrutinizing feel of the lead.
Completed all, bar the comment about failing to receive recognition from US radios... the sources later on specify that neither "Louboutins" or "Fresh Out the Oven" received interest from any radio format, whereas the billboard/about.com sources speaking of Pop Airplay are specifically referring to the last time Lopez appeared on the Pop 100. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come...