Talk:Radar (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JN 466 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The long wait is over ... from a first glance, the article looks very good. If I have any comments, I'll be listing them below. --JN 466 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit-warring

There seems to have been some minor edit-warring around inclusion of the alternate cover, and whether Blackout should be listed as a second album in the "from the album" line. Could you just summarise the underlying issue for me? --JN 466 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the song was released on Blackout and was a planned fourth single. The promo CD (which had the alternate cover featuring Britney with dark hair) was sent to radio stations but the release was scrapped. The song was later included as a bonus track in ALL editions of Circus and released as the official fourth single. So, i think the cover should be kept and only Circus should be listed in the "from the album" line. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, makes sense. --JN 466 22:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External link

I believe this link is inappropriate, as it invites the reader to download software "including 5 free songs". The publisher is clearly reputable, though, and it may be okay to cite the sheet music published by them, without a link. However, what evidence do we have that the beats per minute given in their sheet music correspond precisely to the tempo the song was recorded at? --JN 466 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This information was added by a user along with the link, so i believe he had access to the page. Anyway, the page is the only source for most song articles, including this one which is a featured article. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look at that FA's nomination to see if this was discussed, and whether the link was in the article when it was promoted. I've started a thread at RS/N (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Musicnotes.com). It will be just as well to have a yay or nay to this in the RS/N archives for future reference. --JN 466 22:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link was in the article when it was promoted to FA. It did not come up in the FAC discussions as far as I could see. --JN 466 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus at RSN is that the sheet music is not a reliable source for describing the song as recorded and released. Any statements based on the sheet music should be dropped or attributed -- i.e. if we are using the sheet music as a source, we should make clear that we are describing the sheet music, and are not drawing on a description of the song as heard on the radio. --JN 466 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the link but left the source. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

The sentence ""Break the Ice" was released instead and "Radar" was chosen as the fourth single." is not backed up by the source that follows: [1] --JN 466 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Having first appeared on 2007's Blackout, 'Radar' was supposed to become its final single". from that source and "We really thought it was supposed to be the third single but now we’re hearing that it’s the definite fourth single so we’re excited" from the interview with The Clutch in an earlier source. Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have added the previous source at the end of that sentence as well. That still leaves the name of the third single unsourced, but I guess it is not a contentious fact. --JN 466 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-RS

Discogs.com is not a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Discogs. Could you find alternative sourcing? --JN 466 13:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's still used in another ref though: [2] --JN 466 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't notice that. Now it's done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo

We are describing the song as both "uptempo" and "with a moderate [...] beat". It can only be one or the other; if it is 130 bpm, it is up-tempo, not moderate tempo (which I think would be less than 120 bpm). Both "uptempo" and "moderate synthpop beat" are sourced to the sheet music, which seems odd (?). --JN 466 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal range, descriptions sourced to the sheet music

The outcome of the RSN thread was that the sheet music is not a reliable source for musical details of the song as recorded. Also see this edit: [3]. Absent a source I am inclined to think this content, as well as other content sourced to the sheet music, should go. --JN 466 22:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also expanded the lead section. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry this review has been so slow. But if we work through it, I think we can get there. --JN 466 14:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More song description

You say, "The song features four instruments: bass guitar, drums, electric guitar and synthesizer. "Radar" opens with the synthesizer repeated four times and all four instruments are featured in the chorus".

I think the "four instruments" come from the sheet music again; at any rate, it is not in the cited source. More to the point, in the actual song, I hear several synthesizers (or overdubs), and I don't actually hear any guitar. What bass line there is also seems to come from the electronic drum/synthesizers.
The beginning of the song features an 8-note figure (4 pairs of notes) that is played twice by the synthesizer. --JN 466 14:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all the paragraph :) Xwomanizerx (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. As the article has been at GAN for over three months, could the reviewing and revising be sped up a bit? It's one of the oldest GANs left in the backlog currently. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playlists

We say, "A promotional CD single was sent off for international airplay and "Radar" was then included in playlists for Australian, New Zealand, European and American radio stations." This is cited to [4]. I may be too daft to make sense of the source page here; could you help me out? --JN 466 21:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CD Single listed in the source is from 2008, therefore is the promotional CD single sent before the release was canceled. The song charted before in Australia, New Zealand and some European nations, as noted in the chart performance section. It also received airplay in North America. So, should I leave or remove the paragraph? Xwomanizerx (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't really say when it charted in BE, NZ and AUS, does it? I think tying this into the release of the promotional CD is OR-ish; we should lose the sentence, or re-source it, if possible. --JN 466 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [5], it appears Ultratop bases its chart listings on high-street sales; if this is so, then the release of a promotional CD only could not be responsible for Radar charting in these countries. --JN 466 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it charted as a song based on digital downloads too? Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will come back to this. --JN 466 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I am alright with this. --JN 466 02:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens of submarines

That phrase is not in either cited source. If a writer made this comparison in reference to the synthesizer figure at the beginning of the song, they would probably have been thinking of a submarine's sonar pings, not a siren. --JN 466 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed this; the MTV review cited later on (it probably got separated from this sentence during editing) did indeed refer to "sonar pulses". Sonar pulses also make sense, as it is vaguely analogous to a radar and is used to track a target object's movement. --JN 466 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few months ago that it was the sound of a Doppler radar, but the part was changed by other Wikipedians. Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doppler radar" is what the cited source states, so we are on safe ground there. --JN 466 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autotuned vocals

Do we have a better source for the assertion that her vocals on this song are autotuned? I'd be surprised if they weren't, but the only mention of autotuning in the source is, "Here, her voice sounds naked and thin (which it is), and it's jarring after being lubed up with so much Autotune pitch corrector on earlier tracks like "Piece of Me."" --JN 466 18:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we don't have a source because I couldn't find another one. :( Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could use this Circus review as a source. It says her voice is "treated and autotuned to within an inch of its life throughout", which presumably includes Radar. --JN 466 02:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source! Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

We say, "Cameron Adams of the Herald Sun also compared the song to the style of Rihanna, especially to her single “SOS” (2006)." I am not comfortable with this; the source says, "Radar is workmanlike R&B that's like " on Rihanna's SOS." In our article it sounds like unqualified praise; the source, while generally positive about the album, is a little more reticent. Can we fix this somehow? --JN 466 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to fit the reviewer's point of view. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JN 466 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there progress being made here? It's been marked as on hold for almost 2 months and there's been no activity on this page in 9 days, though I understand with it being easter. Could we try and get this passed as quickly as possible or failed if there are issues that can't be addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mea culpa. I took it on at a time when I had plenty of leisure time, and then got clobbered with work and other stuff. I'll finish it this week. --JN 466 01:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous

We haven't got a source for Meyers having worked with Spears on Outrageous (the cited article doesn't mention that particular song). It's true and easy enough to verify, but you might want to add a source for it (I won't insist). --JN 466 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video description

The cites for the video description don't back up the detailed content we have (e.g. her wearing a vest etc.). You don't actually need cites for the synopsis of the video; it's generally accepted that synopses can be taken from the primary source itself. Suggest you cite only the sentences that are actually taken from the source. --JN 466 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source mix-up

The sentence Nadia Mendoza of The Sun said, "forget PVC catsuits and teeny weeny air hostess outfits. Britney Spears has gone all sophisticated on us" and positively commented on the fashion, saying "Britney dons a hat more suited to Ascot than a music video".[9] seems to be sourced to the wrong Sun article (the one by Poppy Cossins). Could you locate the right article and replace the cite? --JN 466 02:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All outstanding concerns have been addressed, and I'll pass the article now. Thanks for your patience, and for sticking with this lengthy process!
I don't need to tell you that there is a long queue at WP:GAN, so if you can find the time to review one of the articles listed there yourself, it will shorten some other editor's wait. Take care, --JN 466 18:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]