Jump to content

Talk:Love Profusion/GA2

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: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to fill out the template, and then include additional comments below. I also tend to copyedit as I go, and explain if necessary. Thanks, should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Christine, you seem like a wonderful editor —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

At first glance, article seems strong.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose can be improved; see below for my comments and suggestions.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I'm unfamiliar with the typical structure of an article about a song, so I'm AGF that the format of the lists and charts are correct. I'd have someone who is more knowledgeable take a look at it, though.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    Looks fine; I have one picky suggestion, though, which you can leave or take: rename the "References" section to "Works cited", since the first can lend itself to other editors adding books that aren't used in the article.
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    I see that some of your sources are user-generated and aren't the most reliable. I recognize that for a specialized type of article like this one, it may be necessary. I'll do a source review below and look more closely at your references, and how you integrate them.
    C. No original research:
    Looks good at first glance.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Seems comprehensive, but sometimes I find issues with this as I do a source review. I reserve the right to change my mind about this later.
    B. Focused:
    I see from the talk page that this was once a problem; good job dealing with it.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article doesn't seem to go into the glowing/peacocky language often associated with this type of article.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars; very stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Two images; seem to be tagged correctly with NFUR notices. I like the song clip and quotebox.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    See below for prose and source review.

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Christine. Let me know which references you feel can be replaced due to being user generated. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Prose review

  • I tend to look at the lead last, when I'm more familiar with the article.

Background and remixes

  • You tend to overuse articles, which makes the prose clunky and awkward. It's easy enough to correct them myself; please note what I do.
  • According to Lucy O'Brien, author of Madonna: Like an Icon, the main concept of American Life was "nothing".[1] This was evident in the titles of songs like "Nobody Knows Me" and in the usage of "no" in "Love Profusion" and "Nothing Fails".[1] Usage of the negative tone led Madonna to be sarcastic on people's assumptions about her and emphasize about her knowledge of romantic love. These sentences are choppy and full of passive voice. The easy fix for the first sentence is to directly quote O'Brien, since she uses the passive voice herself, or you can fix it in your paraphrase, by changing the verb "nothing" into a noun. The source doesn't state that "Nothing Fails" doesn't use "no"; it says that the theme is apparent in its title. Be careful about that. How about: "According to Madonna's biographer Lucy O'Brien, nothingness is the main theme of American Life; it appears in the titles of songs like "Nobody Knows Me" and "Nothing Fails" and in the repetition of the word "no" in "Love Profusion". Madonna's negative tone in this song and throughout the album allowed her to be sarcastic about people's assumptions about her and to emphasize her knowledge of romantic love."[1] This would also solve your OVERCITE problem. (See below.)
    •  Done
  • The tracks from American Life were released to AOL website for digital download. "Released to AOL website" is ungrammatical. It's better to say "released to AOL.." or "released to AOL's website..."
    •  Done
  • Along with playing their own remixes, Blow-Up also debuted their own version of "Good Boys" (2003) by Blondie, as well as remixes of Madonna's previous single, "Hollywood". You've already stated that Blow-Up had a version, so you don't need to state it again. I also also suggest putting ref 7 at the end of this sentence. How about this, which also tightens up the sentence: "Blow-Up also debuted their own version of "Good Boys" (2003) by Blondie, and remixes of Madonna's previous single, "Hollywood"[7]."
    • Agreed and  Done

Recording and composition

  • The recording sessions for American Life started at late 2001..." Ungrammatical; you don't start something "at" a date; you start it "in" 2001. Fixed.
  • Tom Hannen and Simon Changer, both of them worked as assistant engineer during the recording. Ungrammatical; fixed and tightened.
  • For the instrumentation featured in the song, Ahmadzaï played the guitars and also provided the backing vocals of the track. It's usually not a good idea to start a sentence with a preposition. I also think that enough to say that Ahmadzai played guitars, since adding that it was for the instrumentation is redundant. How about this: "Ahmadzaï played the guitars and provided its backing vocals".
  • You tend to repeat "of the track" or "of the song", which is unnecessary because we know that you're talking about this song. I'll fix it as I go.
 Done
  • The producer used different techniques to have a cool effect on the song, treatments that make the music freeze midrhythm. Even though the source characterizes as "cool", it sounds like you're inserting your personal opinion, something we need to avoid here. Does Rooksby say that these effects were used in this particular song? I ask because ref 12 is making a general statement about the entire album. If Rooksby doesn't, then I'm not sure it belongs here, but rather in the article about the album. You could, however, state that Ahmadzai's style appears throughout the album, which the source implies.
  • According to Rolling Stone, although not explicitly stated, the lines confirm Madonna's belief that American culture will not answer her queries, so she had turned her back to those values, including her own values. This is unclear. The source states that American culture won't give Madonna an explanation, referring to the lyrics, so she has rejected American values, and thereby, her own. How about: "According to Rolling Stone, although not explicitly stated, the lines confirm Madonna's belief that American culture will not "give her an explanation", so she had rejected American values, and along with them, her own values." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • I went ahead and separated the paragraphs differently; I think that the current version separates the ideas better. Change back if you disagree.
  • I also moved the line about Guy Ritchie earlier, for the same reason--it fits better at the beginning of the paragraph. I also changed the wording around because your version made it sound like Ritchie directed the song.
  • I think that this section can be reorganized a little differently, but it's fine for GAC. I can be WP:BOLD and change it if you like, but only with your permission.
Ok, boss, whatever you say. That was fun! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • This section feels like a data dump to me; it's as though you took every review of the song you could find and added it as you found them, which shows in the way you've structured it. The most obvious way to structure it is by positive and negative reviews, so I suggest that you do that, although its current structure is adequate for GAC. I can do it if you like; just let me know.
  • Your paraphrase of the MusicOMH review is too close. Please re-word. Plus, the reviewer is female. Same goes for the Dotmusic review, um the paraphrase not the reviewer's gender. ;)
 Done

Chart performance

  • The song has also topped the Hot Singles Sales and the Hot Dance Singles Sales charts; on the latter it was present at the top for five weeks. Personally, I find the use of "former" and "latter" confusing and unencyclopedic; it's always better to be as clear as possible. I also changed the following sentence, for similar reasons. ("Respectfully" can also be unclear.) Note the change I made.
    • You misplaced the information about the Hot Dance Club year-end tally, I replaced it. ;)
  • Is there any more information about how much the song sold since 2008?
I did'n find any.
Neither did I. One of Madonna's flop tracks. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

  • Two music videos were shot for "Love Profusion", one was for the Estée Lauder "Beyond Paradise" fragrance television advertisement, for which Madonna also provided "Love Profusion" as the theme song, the other was the actual music video. This may be a stupid question, and may exhibit my ignorance, but were there really technically two videos shot? Since the Estee Lauder "video" was a commercial, is there another term to describe the productions created for the song? If so, all you may need to do here is to change the title of the section, perhaps to "Productions". Also, this sentence is ungrammatical; you either need to replace the first comma with a semi-colon, or break up the sentence here.
 Done, moved the commercial into another separate section.
 Done
Actually no. Per WP:PLOT, the video plot requires no source, and the source added shows the last line referenced. "Madonna flies away with the fairies or disappears completely is the question", hence added that. Rest of it is just simple prose. Tweak them if you like. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • You tend to WP:OVERCITE. You don't have to cite every single statement you make. References are like modifiers in that they refer to everything that goes before it. I'm going through and fixing the instances of this I find.
  • Ref 3: All the source says is "Love Profusion on AOL - Keyword: Artist of the Month, Madonna". Not only is that confusing, it doesn't really support your statement that Madonna was AOL's artist of the month. Was it from her website? If so, I recommend using another source that's more reliable (as per WP:SELFPUB. If you can't find it, I suggest removing the statement.
 Done
  • I'm AGF that the sources you're using are necessary to make this article comprehensive. That being said, I suggest that you go through your sources and try to find more reliable ones for sources like IGN and industry sites like Remix and Electronic Musician.
  • Ref 10: This is just a suggestion for you to leave or take. Another editor scanned the liner notes of an album for an article we were working on, and then downloaded them to google docs; perhaps that's something you can do for this album. See Miss Calypso, refs 13, 19, 21).
 Done
Although 11JORN did change the reference, I would like you to tell me how to do it and whether it would be considered WP:COPYVIO? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, to be honest, I didn't consider that before. No one has complained about the above-mentioned album, so I just assumed it was kosher. I'll find out and perhaps get back to you. For now, it's fine as is. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

I'll stop here for now; look for additions to each section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Christine. I'm going through the points you made right now and wondering how to incorporate the changes. Regarding the Remix and Electronic Musician sources, they are the best industry sources regarding the production and recording info, and they are indeed third party sources. For these kind of info, we have to rely on the industry sources as the other third party outlets won't go into that detail about an album track. Like Lucy O'Brien, she would talk about the song, but won't go in the recording info in that much detail like the remix mag link. Hence have to use them. We can surely spruce up the info though, if you feel. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It sounds like you're making a concerted effort to do your own source review. My suggestion is to continue; do a google search for the more unreliable sources and see if you can replace it with a more reliable one. (O'Brien is good, since it's a published book.) Of course, if you can't find one and you need the source for comprehensiveness, then keep it. I'll AGF that you've done your best to find the most reliable sources for the information you present here. If you take this article further to FAC, you'll have to defend them by referring to the comprehensiveness policy, and it's usually acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished for now. Forgive my pickyness; I take reviewing articles seriously and do my best to help improve them. I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address my comments. Let me know if you need more time, and if you need any further assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the wonderful review Christine. So many good points! I will take time and address them and ask your assistance wherever I feel I'm not able to respond productively. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed some issues, as they can be seen above. :) Jorn talk 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the rest. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 11JORN and IB. I hope that I was helpful. I must say, this article surprised me a bit. I mean, I know the song and album was a flop, as you call it above, but I would've thought that there'd be more written about it. I love how I'm always learning stuff here. At any rate, I'll go ahead and pass this now. Congrats! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wonderful review Christine, it was really helpful. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_Profusion/GA2&oldid=1142441870"