Talk:Invading My Mind/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I will begin the review in the next few days. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

No dabs. Done

Introduction

All encompassing? — sort of. Doesn't really give a flavour of the article.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I should have explained this more. Introductions should cover information from every aspect of the article. This could be expanded a bit more e.g. you could say that "Invading My Mind" was recorded following Lopez's move to Island Records and was one of three songs she worked with RedOne on, the other being "On the Floor". (this could also be added to the msuic/compositon section). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Statυs (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written "and to the work of Kylie Minogue" → to songs by Kylie Mingoue.

"to songs by Kylie Minogue" sounds poorly written to me and inaccurate. It was compared to the overall sound of her work. Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to clarify what you wrote. The issue is Kylie Minogue often recieves acclaim for music videos, dancing and her songs. As an entertainer she's also an actress. The way this is currently phrased doesn't make it clear as to what capacity the Minogue comparison comes about. "to songs by Kylie Minogue" is actually a good phrase, but if you don't want to use that fine but the present "and to the work of Kylie Minogue" needs clarifying. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done The reviewer used the word "work", so I also did. Obviously, he would have been referring to music, so I changed it to say music. Statυs (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in the lead section need referencing per WP:INTRO

Done Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Everything bar the last two sentences is irrelevant. All of that stuff about the album belongs on the album's page. The background should be about how where and how "Invading My Mind" came about.

How is it "irrelevant". It speaks of how the song came about. Background information is what occurs before the creation of something, in this case a song. Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written, "Invading My Mind" was recorded as a result from the new recording sessions." → "Invading My Mind" was recorded during the album's new recording sessions under Island Records"

Done Slightly reworded. Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems as if "Invading My Mind" had to be recorded. A song isn't recorded because of a recording session, its recorded during a session. Lopez didn't know what songs she would be recording before the session started but the way its written makes it seem as if the recording sessions happened specifically to record "Invading My Mind" → that's original original research. All we needed to say that new sessions produced various songs of which this as one. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that at all. It now states: ""Invading My Mind" was recorded as a result of the new recording sessions." It was recorded as a result of the new sessions that took place. Statυs (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as a result of" simply isn't the right context. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Statυs (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

This section is poorly written - the first paragraph is just an extended list from the credits.

How is the section "poorly written"? That doesn't give me anything. And I'm not sure what you mean by the second part; you make it sound like a problem, how is it? Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means the whole section reads just like a list that's not in bullet points. It also jumps from describing the genre of the song to the recording and then back to the genre/style again. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved around a bit. Statυs (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's isnt a detailed rational provided for the music sample and so someone could easily argue for that to be removed.

What would you suggest me write instead? Statυs (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See On the Floor#Composition and notice how per WP:NFCC it is clearly explained as to why the sample is required. Yes any article can have a sample but unless its justified it can/will be deleted if someone wishes. The current description says nothing about the portion of the sample. Samples are supposed to be used to indicate something in particular about a line, lyric, portion of production or chorus of the song. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit better now. Statυs (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try something like, "20 Seconds of the chorus, which critics compared to songs by Kylie Minogue".— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Statυs (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

This is fine.

Summary

It feels like this article has been bloated with random information and stretched to its limits to try and make it worthy of GA. Stripping back to bare bones there isn't actually enough detailed information of high quality. It feels like a lot of the uncessary stuff could be removed and unless it can be replaced or given more context I don't think it can be passed for GA as it simply isn't detailed and all encompassing.

Verdict

7 Days to try and fix. but currently leaning towards fail — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If those can be fixed, i'll have another look. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 15:44, 29 August 2012 (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.