Jump to content

Talk:Do What U Want/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Petergriffin9901: thanks for taking this up. However, a main concern I have is that will you be around to completely finish this off? I think you are really busy in RL and do not come online that often. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I only take up what I can manage.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing
A lot of inconsistencies. Ref 2 - why isn't it linked? Ref 3 should be "Wenner Media". Ref 7 & 9 should have reverse linking. Ref 19 - typo. Inconsistencies. You have Vibe and Vibe Media, yet not The Daily Telegraph & Telegraph Media Group. Needs to be consistent. Also, ref 30 isn't linked? Please go through each of the sources and make sure all such inconsistencies are dealt with.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's acceptable to either have every instance of the same source work (Billboard) linked or only the first time it's listed. So either make sure it's linked only the first time on the list, or they are need to be linked. Also, let's not forget the other source queries I've already listed above. Cheers. General and prose check to come.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead

:I'm curious as to why Amazon is being used as a main staple of release? Why not list the label/ITunes?

Apparently it wasn't released for solo download on iTunes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The track was made available early on the iTunes Store ahead of the full release of Artpop. -> I'm honestly not sure what is being said here in regards to its late October release date? Can you be more specific.
See how it looks now. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already did the corrections. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 01:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
featuring R. Kelly for her third studio album, Artpop (2013) -> I think "taken from her third" would be better, or just "from" instead of for. For sounds as though they are in the process of making the song for the album.
It was later released as the album's second single -> this "later" is an issue
second single on Amazon.com on October 21, 2013 -> again, why are we using Amazon as a release staple?
was first heard in a Best Buy/Beats commercial on October 17, 2013 -> Icky. Maybe "made its television debut or the like?
The track was then released to the iTunes Store -> You already said it was released to Amazon. Repetitious and superfluous.
and the positive reception led to Interscope Records making it the album's second single -> and "its" positive reception led "" Interscope Records "to release it as" the album's second single.
"Do What U Want" was presented to Gaga by Blair around two years before. -> very plain and mostly incorrect information. What he presented to her at that point was undoubtedly far from "DWYW". Also, try and avoid these choppy sentences.
They developed and worked on the song until 2013, when it was finally added to the track-list of Artpop after adding Kelly's vocals. -> Just poor prose
Musically the song is a synthpop and R&B track containing 1980s throbbing synths and an electronic beat. -> "Sonically, DWYW". The song doesn't really "contain" a beat, it's laid over one. Needs re-wording. Additionally, quotes and citations when being specific as such would be appropriate.
Gaga had been living in Chicago while working on the song, and the hip hop music prevalent there was one of the inspirations behind the track, which led to Kelly being asked to feature as guest vocalist. -> trivial, run-on. Needs work.
and involves Gaga telling -> "features"
An artwork for the song was revealed -> Unless you're going to mention the date it was released, I think just starting "The song's artwork etc."
covered with just a floral thong -> You make it sound as if it isn't enough. Not our place.
It was described by Gaga as a form of rebellion against society's commercialization of art. -> Um, any discussion on how a picture of her ass in a thong is rebellious against the commercialization of art?
Critics praised the simplicity of the track, its 1980s-inspired production and the commercial appeal. Some compared Gaga's vocals to those of singers Tina Turner and Christina Aguilera. -> I think jointing & cropping this would benefit the read
The song was a moderate commercial success. -> Let's not use opinionated words to describe success. If you'd like to maybe compare its success when considering her previous singles, but otherwise
In the United Kingdom, "Do What U Want" was deemed ineligible to enter the UK Singles Chart until the release of Artpop; the song peaked at number nine after the release of the album and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). -> Why? Total run-on and lack of proper punctuation
She also performed the song on other high profile American shows -> You've only mentioned a British show thus far...
and The Voice with Christina Aguilera. -> alongside
and was supposed to be released -> was due for release
but was unreleased with Gaga stating that she did not get enough time to honor her creativity for the release -> unreleased??? Honor her creativity??
Remixes for the song were commissioned by Interscope, among them the versions featuring rapper Rick Ross and Aguilera were released. -> Remixes for the song were commissioned by Interscope; among them are the versions featuring rapper Rick Ross and Aguilera were released.
    • Before I proceed guys, I really think you need to hook up with a copy-editor or dedicate more time to the article's prose. So many grammar issues in just the lead is quite alarming. Good luck and I'll be watching. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

[edit]

Strong Oppose Fail this article, poor sources. I see sources such as Rap-Up & Fuse, totally unknown sources and also unreliable. Article highly fails GA criteria. Shane Cyrus (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In retaliation for User_talk:IndianBio#Your_behaviour. Continue this and you will be reported to ANI. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio, What you are saying is extremely non-cooperative and my opposition still stands strong. Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Rather than making such excuses, replace those links I suggested and the article might pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Cyrus (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand not using Rap-Up, but Fuse is most certainly reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wanting to help as this song is 1 of ma faves Do replace rapup or I will. Shane Cyrus (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Both Fuse and Rap-Up are reliable sources. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to report the user if this continues. This is total harassment. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well. As it so happens, this isn't a FAC, so the decision of passing the article lies solely with me. First off, this article does need a nice amount of work, but I have a hunch you're not generally concerned with its quality. Right Shane? As for Bio, mate enough with the harassment stuff. I understand it can be frustrating when the work you believe is up to standard is questioned or criticized (especially when it seems to be done as a vendetta) but he's completely entitled to present his opinion on the article's quality. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problems with either Fuse or Rap-Up to report news etc (with the exception of sales figures and other juicy stuff). Lastly, let's try and up the maturity a bit Shane?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay guys. I completely re-vamped the lead. Bare in mind that these aren't etched in stone, so feel free to fool around with it to your liking. Please use my example as a guide for proper prose and flow/structure for the rest of the article.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the?, I remember removing these comments. Who undid it? - Shane Cyrus (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's review continued

[edit]

*Writing

The picture could use a bit better description
Gaga had been living in Chicago and completing the songs for Artpop, which was being influenced by the R&B and hip hop music predominant there -> prblematic
After the release of the first single from the album, titled "Applause", the singer was determined to create something different and unfamiliar to her past hit singles, and "Do What U Want" stemmed from that thought. -> It sounds like you're saying she created the song after "Applause" was released. Needs a lot of work
Described as "some space age George Jetson R&B sound" -> By whom? Blair?
Blair recalled how in 2011 his friend Martin was playing him a particular beat from his own remix project. Blair liked the music and presented it to Gaga. The singer also appreciated the tune and started writing the lyrics while on the Born This Way Ball tour throughout Europe. -> All poorly written. Ex. European leg of..
One day, the singer's mother called her and talked about some news article which were discussing about Gaga putting on weight. The singer was enraged and found such journalism extremely shallow. She decided that the song would take a stance on such incidents and she would dictate whatever she wants to portray instead of being transparent in front of the world -> Needs tidying. Why Not Introduce her as Cynthia..?
After the writing was over -> the writing was over? Oh boy..
the song was left with Gaga and Blair until a month before its release, when they started discussing it again -> bad
Gaga was singing the song on her tour bus, when Blair said that "Do What U Want" had become his favorite song from the album. -> This sentence doesn't hook on well
and Blair felt that Kelly would -> Blair suggested...........
The following sentences need work
-> In an interview with Billboard
when he came to know about Gaga's determination and her artistry, Kelly was impressed and described the collaboration as "natural jelling". -> You aren't doing a very good job of making a compare/contrast
  • Recording
"muscular club beat" -> A few things. It doesn't have a "muscular club beat". It was described as having one by critics etc. Also, a citation is needed after every quote, especially when not listing said journalist
Jason Lipshutz from Billboard -> of
Link "mid-tempo"
You can alternate with Billboard's "", then "" of MTV News
He didn't really say it
Gaga starts the song with Kelly adding adlibs, but sings the second verse. -> poor
I think 22-second is preferred (could be wrong)
pre-chorus, chorus, chorus. Also, quotations need links..
West Midtown, Atlanta, Georgia, by Dave Russell and Bill Malina for Gaga and by Abel Garibaldi and Ian Moonness for Kelly -> typo and poorly written
Benjamin Rice, Ghazi Hourani, Zane Shoemake and Dino "SpeedoVee" Zisis assisting on the recording and the mixing of the track. -> this is all tedious, repetitive and confusing to say the least
Russell also did the primary mixing of the track at Record Plant. -> Add that to the mix that needs surgery ;)
Don't start a sentence with "instrumentation". This section is reading very list-like (I get it's hard with many names etc.) with repetitious and boring prose.
Donnie Lyle acted as the musical director for Kelly. Finally, Rick Pearl did the additional programming and Gene Grimaldi did the audio mastering at Oasis Mastering Studios in Burbank, California -> All over the place. Going fro present to past tense etc. PS, what's the "finally"?
the song is straight forward -> sounds a bit NPOV
Songs don't find people
"the sentiment" -> See my changes to the lead and apply them as appropriate
She and Kelly -> the singer etc
More quotes that need linking
According to MTV News, one of Kelly's line is directed towards the critics when he sings; "Taking these haters/ And we rough 'em up/ And we land the cut light, we don't give a....." -> Lol. Isn't that kind of obvious?
of NY
interpreted the lyrics as twisting the sexual implications of the song, -> confusing
believing -> Journalists & writers believe what they write..
The last few lines are obvious and just superfluous. I suggest major trimming.
  • Release
Gaga started two polls on Twitter"," asking fans to help her choose the second single";"
the first poll asked to choose between "Manicure" and "Sexxx Dreams" while the second poll asked to choose between "Aura" and "Swine". -> Try and rephrase a bit
On September 20, 2013, Gaga gave an update about the second single, stating that it will be released before the album. Next month Gaga revealed that "Venus" has been chosen as the second single.[20] In the meantime -> too much
first heard -> Please let's not have to repeat already listed issues in other sections
Try and hook on the following sentence for a more fluid read
Following the commercial success of the song on its release, Gaga and her label decided to release "Do What U Want" as the second official single from Artpop therefore cancelling "Venus" -> re-write
radio stations, radio stations
impacted, impacted
You should link "Top 40" "Mainstream" etc...
States the following month on November 5, 2013. -> punctuation
that this -> the
Lipshutz commented that this change-up of the single at the last moment was reminiscent of a similar situation faced by Gaga in 2011 with her second studio album, Born This Way. After the second single "Judas" was released in April 2011, it soon started to peak commercially. So in order to keep the momentum going, the label decided to rush release a third single the following month; the song chosen as the third single was the critically acclaimed promo single, "The Edge of Glory", which later went on to achieve chart success -> major pruning needed
The first promotional artwork showed Gaga wearing a long burnette wig and naked except moss covering her genitals. -> poor prose. Absolutely zero punctuation
Taken -> Shot. Try not to start a sentence so bleakly
Taken by photographer Terry Richardson, the cover art looks like a polaroid shot according to Catherine Earp from Digital Spy. -> No structure
Why "it was also"?
This From needs to stop
Try and reallllly trim down the next 4-5 lines
gossip -> rumors
and the media pitting the singer against fellow pop musician Katy Perry, when Gaga's single "Applause" and Perry's "Roar" were released within days of each other. -> run-on
Instead writing controversial up here, best Re-write part with critics. Ex. It proved controversial with critics...
Critics don't really respond to Gaga
Highlighted is -> tenses
  • General Note I'm stopping here for now. At almost 100k, this article is far too long/repetitious/tedious, especially given its popularity/coverage. Please use my guide thus far to go through the article trying to apply similar changes. There is a ton of trimming to be done in the following sections. I took the liberty in copy-editing/trimming and re-writing the lead and the first three sections. These are the kind of prose/corrections/trimmings I need to see for the remainder. Use my edits as a guide for the points you didn't understand. A few more things. The description for the audio sample needs a complete revamp. I recommend you place the photo of Richardson in the "Music Video" section, and the R. Kelly photo instead of the one of Aguilera. Good luck pips!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo, Petergriffin, you already did the work I think, what else is left tbh. :D —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting there :) Lol, luckily for you, I got a bit carried away in the process. I copy-edited the lead and first three paragraphs, so the other half definitely still needs to be re-written in a similar vein. I mean no offense, but your grammar seems stronger than Snuggs; perhaps you can give it a go Bio. As for length and sourcing, I already took care of all the tedious stuff. Also, source formatting is still very much an issue. A lot of errors and inconsistencies.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last call

[edit]
Audio sample box needs to be re-written and needs some sources
A picture of Richardson by the 'music video' section would be appropriate
I still require Bio to do a thorough copy-edit of the entire article (with extra focus on the second half)
There are still many sourcing inconsistencies and errors in formatting etc.
Thanks Peter, I'm getting to it now. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added Richardon's pic and a general copy edit. But which reference do you see as erroneous still? I might be overlooking it so asking. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Billboard sources and what not are improperly formatted. Plus, linking is an issue as well.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the references generated from the {{singlechart}} template, then that is not in my hand. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't the one I'm referring to. Just take a close look. I'm sure Snugg knows the errors I'm talking about.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, you are leaving me "Thirsty" ...... —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Mariah pun :P. Anyway, I believe Peter is referring to how for example refs #51, #52, and #53 have page numbers while other Billboard refs don't. Correcting those now. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, ref#53 isn't adapting to what I put into the cite template D:<. Here's what it reads:

<ref name="popweek3">{{cite web|url=http://www1.billboard.biz/bbbiz/photos/pdf/2013/TFMm1118.pdf|title=Miley Cyrus, Avicii, Calvin Harris Net New No. 1s|last=Trust|first=Gary|date=November 18, 2013|accessdate=November 21, 2013|work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media}}</ref>

Why the fuck is it not adapting!? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is not working? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was ref#52. My error. What I thought was happening is how it kept "Sean Ross" as author in place of "Gary Trust", as well as an incorrect title and date and such. Never mind. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, my good sirs, let me be more specific. Refs 2 & 3 shouldn't have the cite 'news' template in place (the publisher should come up in parenthesis). Number 6 for example, should be left as is. 7 & 10 have the same issue. So does 13. Complex is a magazine, not a newspaper. Same goes for Billboard, Rolling Stone, Vibe (20), Complex, Music Week and Esquire etc. 'Rap-Up' (92) should'nt be italicized. It's a website. Why does the LA Times (93) not have the news template? Why is (94) linked here? Hope that covers it ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the job! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme know if I missed any ref problems, Peter. Not sure why that Beyoncé booklet was included, so I removed it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the formatting. See my changes to refs 2 & 3 and compare their difference in appearance from the rest.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 06:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you said "the publisher should come up in parenthesis", I changed a bunch of "cite web" refs to "cite magazine" so those fields come up in parentheses. Changing it to "web" takes it out of the parentheses. Maybe you mistyped something. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template to {{cite journal}}, that is the correct template for magazines. I have splitted this last minute review comments with a different section name. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix, I'll have to remember "journal" for magazines. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done with this? What exactly is the hold up? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know the same. Peter, it would help to know what specifically needs addressing. You've asked IndianBio to do some rewriting of the second half, but didn't specify if any specific bits need addressing more than others. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue still remains the references. I spelled that out several times already yet it's still not done..--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that was long resolved. XXSNUG and me have personally looked after it. If you are nit-picking over one reference, then you need to point it out, else this is drawing out for too long. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed up publisher info for E! refs. If that wasn't it, I have no idea what it else could be. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing out to long? Last I checked, you were the nominator Indio, not Snuggums (as to which I can't understand why you've been nowhere to be found for most of it). As a matter of fact, this article, good sirs, was in awful shape and had the grounds to be quick-failed. I graciously drew out this extensive review for you, and in fact, made most of the important fixes myself. I'm going to repeat myself, once again. All of the Billboard sources (as well I see Rolling Stone) should NOT have their publishers in parenthesis. You need to look through them and see which others it applies too.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they should. They are printed media and as per MOS:CITE, they are supposed to have the {{Cite journal}} template which automatically puts it in parentheses. So if your issue is with that, you need to take it to the respective noticeboard, not here. Sorry Peter but it cannot be changed. As for XS, he has been graciously helping all along, not everyone can be in front of the monitor and fortunately XXS has been able to reach out to the review comments at first. And I'm extremely thankful for it. But that does not warrant such snappy remarks from you regarding my investment in this review. I thank you for your graciousness and taking the time out to go through the article and sprucing it up instead of failing it, but yeah all points cannot be addressed, especially when you are coming with your own preference, instead of following the Manual of Style. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't preference. I won't argue over MoS issues that people decide to alter and change. Won't stop it. I just happen to not like feeling snapped at or pressured completion before I feel its time. Either way, much work was needed in the references. I'd like a second opinion on the references, but I won't halt the review for it. I'm going to take another look now.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 10:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Do_What_U_Want/GA1&oldid=1142437819"