Talk:Is She Really Going Out with Him?/GA1

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 Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Mine! Expect initial comments within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Starting with the infobox and lead.....

Infobox

• Per MOS:FONTSIZE, Avoid using smaller font sizes within elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections, so don't reduce the size of any text here. Let's make it easier on readers' eyes.
  • Fixed.
• If known, I would specify when in September 1978 this was first released
  • Fixed release dates.
• I don't see any support for a recording date or David Kershenbaum producing this track within the article prose
  • Added line covering both of those in "Background" section with source

Lead

• "hit" in "a chart hit" isn't very encyclopedic language
  • Removed use of "hit" when not in a quote or album title
• It feels incomplete to not mention the Netherlands, where this had its highest charting
  • Put line in lead about Dutch performance; added more detail in live performances section about this a cappella version.
• Let's make it clearer that Jackson wrote this track himself
  • Changed opening line to say "written by"
• "Initially released as a single in 1978" seems a bit repetitive when you mention September 1978 in the previous paragraph, so maybe try something like "Following its initial release" or "After its original release"
  • Changed to "On its initial release, ..."
• "Two follow-up singles, 'Sunday Papers' and "One More Time', were also chart failures; however, when 'Is She Really Going Out with Him?' was rereleased in 1979 after Jackson's reputation and new wave music grew in popularity, the single saw more attention and became a chart hit" is quite a mouthful! I'd turn the semi-colon into a period, and see my previous comments on "hit".
  • Split the sentences.

More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS! Looking forward to your review. I'll get cracking on your current critiques. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Background

• Not sure the whole quote box for "angry young man" is needed when a more informative quote from Songfacts is already given

Removed quote box and put quote in a note, though if the article is better without the quote at all I can remove it.

• I'd delete that quote altogether SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Quote deleted.

• You can remove "Joe" from "According to Joe Jackson" when we've already established his first name within the section

Removed "Joe"

• There's no need to use the exact same citation more than once in a row, see WP:OVERCITE (within paragraph#2, you use ref#3 for two consecutive sentences when it only needs to be used at the end of the second one)

Removed second citation

• "He said of the song's origins in an interview" is rather wordy, and I'd try to paraphrase at least some of the Songfacts quote

Removed the "of the song's origins" to make it less clunky; removed part of quote about the title, which I already touched on in the prose

• See MOS:QUOTEMARKS for the quote on misinterpreting this track as racist, and can't you paraphrase some of it? Perhaps this is better for the "music and lyrics" section below.

Fixed quotation marks and paraphrased everything except Jackson's reaction. Not sure whether it would fit as well in the music and lyrics section since its more anecdotal then a characteristic of the song? Not really sure

Your paraphrasing now is fine. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Will leave it in Background section. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• Let's not alter quotes; "immediately set[s] a vibe of cool indignation" gives a misleading impression that AllMusic used the word "sets" when it actually says "setting"

Reworded.

• Same problem with "captur[es] mood and meaning through minor detail"; what the reviewer really says is "capturing"

Reworded.

I'll get to "release" in my next batch and maybe "critical reception". Either way, I've noticed some back-and-forth reverting over a content dispute, which should be kept to a minimum or I might have to fail this as an unstable article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional input. I reached out to the other editor and we resolved the issue, which was over whether the covers merited separate sections and infoboxes/artwork. I'd like to have your input on that once we get down to the cover section though. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's reassuring. Now to continue my review.....

Release

• Does "'Is She Really Going Out with Him?' was initially released as a single in 1978 with 'You Got the Fever' as the B-side" refer to the October 1978 release you mention in lead and infobox? Remember that those should ideally stick to content discussed within article body, and if you don't mention it in body, then cite in lead/infobox

Specified date to make clear it refers to initial release.

• "were released after 'Is She Really Going Out with Him?'" is redundant when you already say "Sunday Papers" and "One More Time" are "follow-up singles"

Fixed.

• Starting four consecutive sentences with "the" feels repetitive.

Changed wording of final sentence in first paragraph.

• You'll need to include a separate citation for Australia, Canada, and Ireland as I can't find those anywhere here, only the Netherlands and New Zealand (and [https://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Joe+Jackson&titel=Is+She+Really+Going+Out+With+Him%3F+%28A+Cappella+Version%29&cat=s this has the a capella version, which should be mentioned in the section)

Added citations.

• "The UK B-side of the single, 'You Got the Fever', was a non-album track that later appeared as a bonus track on later reissues of the Look Sharp! album." isn't really relevant; I'd cut those sentences entirely

Cut those sentences.

• "The American single release instead inclued '(Do the) Instant Mash,' another Look Sharp! song. An alternate recording of the song was released as the B-side to Jackson's 1981 single 'Beat Crazy'." is entirely unsourced. You should also say included rather than "inclued", and detail on Look Sharp featuring this B-track is irrelevant

Removed detail about the track being from Look Sharp!. Finding sources right now; dug up one for the "Beat Crazy" single, though since it is live I'll throw the info down there.

• "Several" means at least five, yet you only list three compilations. Why not just instead say "has appeared on the compilation albums" before listing them?

I thought it would be redundant to keep listing compilations, since there are more than three. Should I grab more or just change the wording?

• I'm fine with you just changing the wording SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• When going into chart peaks within this section, then you should (even if only briefly) mention Belgium and the Netherlands, especially the latter given its success with the a capella edition. It otherwise looks incomplete.

I mentioned the charts for those in the "Live performances" section. I can re-add them here but I'm not sure if that's redundant. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Better to move them up to here from that section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Added reference to live single in release section.

Critical reception

• File:Joe Jackson face.jpg seems to mainly placed as decoration here; is he even known to be performing this specific track in that pic?

I can't find any info showing that this is the song he is performing here. I put this here since other reviewers in the past have asked me to include pictures of the artists within the body. This one is of the period so I think it makes a decent addition, though if it is unnecessary I can remove it.

• If anything, you'd be better off with a performance pic of this specific track SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed pic. I don't wanna tread into non-free images so finding a song-specific pic would be tricky. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• For general assessments of reception, you should have a reference specifically noting overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable responses.

Digging around for a source that indicated overall critical response but I'm not really sure where to find one. What would you recommend?

It's admittedly not as easy as albums (which have an idea of overall reception listed on Metacritic), so hard to say

Having dug through the internet for a few hours I can say I cannot find anything. I could probably cut out the sentence. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, don't alter quotes; "masterwork" from "brilliantly agitated New Wave masterwork" is actually the plural masterworks. Same goes for "favorite" from "old favorite" and "witticism" from "caustic yet charming witticism".

Fixed wording.

• Dave Lifton's comments could use some elaboration on what he liked about the song

Added.

• Remove "Jackson's most notable tracks" as that's a blatant personal opinion and not encyclopedic tone; see WP:EDITORIALIZING for more. In fact, the only sentence from the third paragraph that comes even close to reviewing the song rather than discussing memories or fame levels is his "the best thing I've ever done" bit.

Changed the lead sentence to say it was considered by critics to be one of his most notable tracks. I changed the title of the section to "Critical reception and legacy" to be inclusive of the information about the song's notoriety; hopefully that makes it relevant within the section. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

At least you've attributed the opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and section renaming is fair, though "most memorable" or "most remembered" would be more accurate generalizations for the reviews you've quoted. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and "proven to be [Jackson's] best-known song" should say his best-known song as that's what its citation actually reads; let's give a more honest representation without altering the quote's words. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll return with more in the future. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Live performances

• "An a cappella version of "Is She Really Going Out with Him?" was released as a single in 1988 in some European countries" needs its own citation when Rolling Stone only talks about how Duke Ellington inspired a rework of this track for The Duke (which should be mentioned by name and was released in 2012, not 2013)

Added citation and changed wording/date.

• I'm guessing you meant to cite this for the inclusion on Two Rainy Nights

Yeah that's the link. My bad! Fixed.

• Not an accessible citation when its listed episode is unavailable; please use something else to support Later... with Jools Holland

The episode is not available but a list of performed songs is present on the site (showing Jackson performed "Is She Really Going Out with Him?"). I could possibly cite a DVD release or something? Currently scrounging for an article or something. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad; I didn't notice the tracklist at first. That will suffice. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Not much other info out there on the perfomance for whatever reason (probably since Joe Jackson wasn't too newsworthy in 2003!) Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Personnel

• This section is completely unsourced. If you'd like to simply cite an album/single booklet for those credit listings and say something along the lines of "Credits adapted from ______" at the bottom of the list, then that's fine by me.

Done.

Next batch will assess "Charts" and maybe "cover versions". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Charts

Weekly charts

• Looks good

Yearly charts

• I would prefer a non-forum URL for Australia if available
  • Would this site be reputable? Otherwise I'm not finding much. Most sources seem to only have the top 25 for the year. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Cover versions

• "Sugar Ray recorded a cover of the song and released it in July 2003 as the lead single from their fifth studio album In the Pursuit of Leisure"..... single release doesn't seem to be that relevant here, so let's cut that part out and say it was a cover for the album
  • Done.
• Chart position for this cover needs its own citation as TV Guide only talks about its use in I'm with Her
  • Done.
• The unfavorable review of Sugar Ray's cover doesn't really go into "classic rock covers", more just saying it was one of the worst covers period.
  • Fixed.
• No mention of Dear Diary album or Australian Independent charts, only general ARIA singles chart for Australia.
  • Added source for Dear Diary, couldn't find Independent Chart so I cut it.
• Since you asked for my thoughts on discussing covers, I personally feel this collective summary form is superior to the one where Sugar Ray and Kid Courageous covers had their own sections and infoboxes as those didn't have much to stand on their own.
  • That's good to hear. I really don't think either cover in the other version had enough info to merit another section. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

References

• Don't italicize AllMusic, uDiscoverMusic, Dutchcharts.nl, Nederlandse Top 40, Ultratop.be, NPO Radio 2, BBC Two, or australian-charts.com
  • Fixed.
• "Allmusic.com" and "Allmusic" should be AllMusic with a capital M
  • Fixed.
• Is "Popdose" known to overall be a trustworthy source?
  • From what I can tell it seems OK; it's verified on Facebook and seems professional? I can remove it if needed since it is not the sole source for any one fact.
• Italicize Billboard (magazine) for ref#50, which just reads "Billboard - July 26, 2003, page 56" right now, and I'd prefer to have an article title if possible. You can also safely use the reviewer's name for that bit.
  • Source fixed. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall

• Prose: Almost there, just needs some touching up
• Referencing: One questionable reference, one subpar link, some malformatted citations, and not quite all text is supported by given sources
• Coverage: A bit of excess detail on Sugar Ray
• Neutrality: No bias that I can find now
• Stability: The earlier content dispute has simmered down, and all edits since then have been to improve the article based on review
• Media: File:Is She Really Going Out with Him? - Joe Jackson.jpg has an appropriate FUR.
• Verdict: Placing this nomination on hold for seven days starting now. You should be able to address the remaining comments within that time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed all the concerns laid out in the review. Let me know if I missed anything of concern. :) Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Only two things remain, Beatleswhobeachboys; you haven't commented on how credible Popdose is or gotten any URL for the Australian Year-End Listing that isn't from a forum. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi SNUGGUMS. As I put above, I think Popdose is reliable since it's verified and looks professional though I cannot say much else. I can remove the source if it seems unreliable. As for the Australian Year-end, I could only find the other link I put above. Not sure whether it is reliable though. Worst comes to worst I can remove the year-end chart and the Popdose source, since neither are particularly huge components. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed the Popdose source. Looking at the page again it really is superfluous so any question as to its reputability would make it unreasonable to keep. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Added other source for AUS charts. Concerned about its reputability, but it seems to be the only source I could find that goes past 25. If you think it's not usable, I'll just remove the AUS year-end box. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Good removal and I'm fine with the replacement. One other thing I find when reading through again is how the 31st of October 1978 and 6 July 1979 are only mentioned in infobox without accompanying citations. What's in place now only supports October 1978 without a specific day of the month. If you can't find anything for that particular day, then remove it. I'm guessing the catalogue number AMS 7459 re-release refers to the aforementioned 1979 date, in which case you'd like specifically say so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed unsourced dates and rephrased sentence with catalogue num. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You use July 1979 in infobox, yet June 1979 in "release" section. Which is it supposed to be? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

My bad. Meant to type July. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is now ready for promotion! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:16, 2 April 2019 (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.