Talk:Lemon Incest

Lemon Incest was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 10, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lemon Incest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lemon Incest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Benmite (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benmite: I'll review this one. Please put this review page in your watchlist, I'll give my thoughts soon. Thank you for your patience. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Lemon Incest" is a single recorded by French father and daughter Serge and Charlotte Gainsbourg. "Lemon Incest" is a song* " (the fact it's a single would be mentioned in the following sentence anyway) The music video for the song shows Serge, shirtless and in jeans,[ and Charlotte, wearing a blue dress shirt and panties, lying side-by-side in a large white double bed, with Serge caressing Charlotte and the two surrounded by cracked rocks and covered by smoke. Please revise this run-on sentence Far Out's Sam Kemp listed it as the most controversial music video of all time, while The Telegraph listed it as one of the most controversial music videos of all time. No complaints here per se; however, is there any way this could be rewritten without having to barely repeat the fact it's "the [most] controversial music videos of all time"? Same thing with Josh Gray of Clash called the song "eternally creepy" and Vice's Kim Kelly called it "stupefyingly creepy".
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*It peaked at number two in France, where it spent 14 weeks on the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique (SNEP) chart and was also certified silver by the SNEP. merge this with third lede paragraph where much of the reception on the song is discussed "Lemon Incest" was called Charlotte's only hit record by Shawn Levy of The Oregonian. link "only hit record" to One-hit wonder perhaps? Critical reception (which I think should be called "Critical response" instead) lacks thematic organization and cohesion, in that it consists of juxtaposed ideas that don't add up to a substantive whole. For example, discussions about the song's comparison with "Je t'aime... moi non plus" is juxtaposed with those about its alleged themes of pedophilia/incest. See WP:RECEPTION, which offers great tips on how to write a better critical reception section. I expect to see the same result as those in the examples in the guideline
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	*It was recorded in 1984 and included on Serge's controversial new wave album Love on the Beat, which was released the same year, as well as on Charlotte's 1986 debut album Charlotte For Ever. For text-source integrity, please put inline citations at the end of each text instead of merging them together for further verification Cite 10 needs timestamps inline for further verification since the reference seems to be the five-minute video clip What makes cite 45 and 50 reliable?
	2c. it contains no original research.	*Retrospective reviews of the song have been mixed Unsourced Charlotte sings with "wobbly", "shrill", and "breathy" vocals, described by AllMusic's Thom Jurek as a "cracking whisper". Why make this sentence complex when it could be written as a simple one? Like, Various contemporary sources have described Charlotte's vocals as "wobbly", "shrill", and "breathy", as well as a "cracking whisper". Each adjective is attributed to its respective source's author anyway, hence the presence of quotes, yet it's only Jurek's that has attribution in the prose... The song has a disco beat and is backed by synths, keyboards, and a chorus singing the song's title. Synthesis: cite 12 and 19 mention nothing about the chorus singing the title, nor cite 20 mentions about the song featuring disco beats, synth and keyboards. Each source must explicitly state this single claim, otherwise it's OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	*It was listed as one of the creepiest father-daughter duets of all time by VH1 in 2015. Article title should be quoted for neutrality
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~These are my comments as of April 3. I'll continue later. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply] Due to a tight schedule IRL, the nominator has requested that this review be failed for now. The article can still be re-nominated at a later date, provided that its remaining issues are addressed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benmite: I have just finished performing spot-checks of the remaining sources. Thank you for addressing some of my concerns. However, I'd like to know why you left the other concerns unresolved. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Sorry about that! It wasn't purposeful, just didn't manage to get to everything. Will finish making the edits and responding to concerns by tomorrow. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Clearly that was me doing some wishful thinking! Sorry. I've been kind of distracted lately and am not sure I'll be able to get this done any time soon. If you could fail it for now, I'll return to it when I can. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted. Apologies. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]