Wikipedia:Peer review/Promiscuous (song)/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Promiscuous (song))
A fine song, and I think this article's notability is deserving enough for it to reach FA status. Please dive in and offer your thoughts. Velten 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Footnote 1,7 and 8 have no information. Can this be fixed? - Tutmosis 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Anything else? Velten 02:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well using the wonderful "Article content" section from Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs I have a couple pointers. Personally I feel the article is incomplete especially the "Background and writing". I want to know more about what the lyrics talk about, I think "describes two-sided relationship of promiscuous girl" explains little. You mention in the lead that Timberland co-wrote, and produced the song. Can this be discussed more? Except the fact that she wrote with Timothy Clayton because his an intresting guy, can more be mentioned about the writing process? When/where did they write it, what inspired them, what they trying to convey in the lyrics? Why was Timbo and Danja listening to "Talking Heads, Blondie, Madonna, The Police and Eurythmics" while producing? Also what do you mean "The reference was considered good-natured"? Was the song an influence on popular culture, like say were there any skits on Mad TV or something? Good Luck. - Tutmosis 19:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- These are excellent suggestions. Velten 00:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest nominating for GA first and see whether it'd pass. The FA song "Fuck the Millennium" may suggest some ideas to improve the article. LuciferMorgan 11:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've tagged a few statements with {{fact}}. If you're aiming for FA (although I feel this article is currently some way off) you'll have to move to inline citations rather than relying on the general references section at the bottom for some of the information. I think the lead is a bit thin (see WP:LEAD) and also the "Background" section doesn't really set the scene - not knowing much about Furtado I came away feeling none the wiser. That said, this is well above average and I personally would consider passing it for GA once the {{fact}} tags are dealt with. --kingboyk 12:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)