Jump to content

Talk:React (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA nomination successful when article was improved enough within allotted time

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

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Expect initial comments within a week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning with the infobox and lead.

Infobox

[edit]
  • File:The Pussycat Dolls - React.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Unless I'm missing something, there's no specific indication in the lead or body that this was recorded in 2019
  • On the other hand, WP:INFOBOXREF says that citations aren't needed here when content is already sourced within article prose

Lead

[edit]
  • Not sure how the Interscope bit is lead-worthy
  •  Done Removed, instead focussing on the independent bit as it is their first independent release.
  • "hits" from "medley performance of their hits" is subpar tone
  •  Done changed hits to singles so that it's less suggestive more neutral
  • I'd drop the component charts; they don't represent overall popularity within nations unlike main charts
  • For the UK, let's just be more straightforward and say it reached number 29

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • I'm skeptical about File:Melody Thornton LF.jpg having a non-working source URL. Unless a replacement link can be found, I recommend using another image in place.
 Done replaced.
  • "By February 2010" should have a comma at its end
 Done, added a comma
  • This doesn't say Thornton had left the group (yet); it notes she and Scherzinger were the only members still in the band at that point once Wyatt, Roberts, and Sutta were gone. We'll need an additional ref for when her departure was.
 Done, found and added a new reference.
  • "several attempts for other members to join" doesn't seem to be supported here. If anything, it could be used to say that other people tried to join the group, though it only discusses one potential lineup with new members.
 Done, clarified
 Done, clarified
  • No mention of a tour, also vaguely attributing the reunion claim to an unspecified "source" with "A source tells ET" is suspicious and suggests they're trying to hide something by not giving any sense of who that "source" is. Not an attribution that I recommend taking at face value when people can use such phrasing as a disguise for something that got pulled out of nowhere.
 Not done, journalism is competitive and outlets often hide their sources to protect those leaking stories. Also we've not said it was confirmed, just that ET was reporting it which is factually correct. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least you didn't treat it like a firm confirmation right-then-and-there of reuniting. Providing some sense of who said "source" was (i.e. "a rep for _____" or something similar if not revealing a specific name) would give it more credibility. Regardless, it doesn't mention any future touring at all, so a different citation would be needed for such detail. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metro is a poor citation, and it doesn't mention Bachar leaving the group in 2008
 Done, added specific reference relating to Bachar's 2008 exit. Second hand reporting isn't a poor citation particularly where it was a physical and printed interview but The Sun and Daily Mail are discouraged sources. Even though the publications have dubious POVs if an interview has happened I can't help that. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
✓, fixed → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 12:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably be done section-by-section. I'll let you get through the above, and then go into "Music and lyrics". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to mention that File:Melody Thornton at American Music Awards.jpg is A-OK to use SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

[edit]
  • In the quote box, avoid curly quotation marks per MOS:CURLY, and I'm guessing you meant to use this instead of the Idolator citation attached to Scherzinger's comments
 Done, corrected reference. Not sure about the MOS:Curly thing as I couldn't find an occurance of them.
 Done
  • Just curious, is Female First normally deemed viable? Not that it's being used for anything contentious, but I'm not familiar with this publication.
Its a celebrity entertainment site, similar to Digital Spy in the UK. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork

[edit]
  • The semi-colon from "Roberts; outfit was legless" should be an apostrophe
 Done
  • You don't need to use the same citation more than once in a row when all consecutive text it's attributed to in that paragraph supports the content. See WP:REPCITE for more.
 Done → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 14:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Release" shall follow next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]
  • "the song wasn't available"..... avoid contractions unless part of a quote or title per WP:CONTRACTIONS
 Done
  • since not everyone is familiar with how "noughties" means 2000–2009, I recommend just giving that decade's name for the sake of simplicity, even though you've linked the term
 Done
Whilst Interscope isn't mentioned, I don't think I need to source that Interscope is no longer their label as I've sourced elsewhere in the section that they're independent artists now and their previous albums were released on Interscope (as sourced on each of their album pages). → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Interscope could be removed altogether when there's more focus on being on an independent label to begin with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "released to digital outlet", did you mean to say outlets as a plural?
 Done, that is what I meant. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Live performances" will probably come after you've had a chance to go through the above. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

[edit]
  • "alongside previous hits"..... see my previous comment on "hits"
  • ✓, I've changed all references of 'hits' to 'singles' per what we agreed further up. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Buzzfeed is filled with lots of user-generated content and should be avoided, even when being used to express opinions
  • Not sure. Matt Stopera wrote this particular piece, he is deputy editor of the site and has his own wiki article. He also appears in several internet searches so I would assume he is notable for inclusion. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Don't capitalize "ate" in "ATE [up] their performance", and altering quotes is misleading to readers; the cited article doesn't use "up" in that line
  • E! shouldn't have italics when it's a network
  • More MOS:CURLY issues with the test card quote from Andy and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway
  • For the "music and lyrics" section, yes, but not in this one and I just fixed it myself
  • "their previous hits as part of"..... same as before
  • "Scherzinger [was] noticeably singing over the top of a separate pre-recorded track," once again alters a quote where it shouldn't by inserting "[was]"
  • I'm not sure I agree, per this article here it is standard practise in academic writing to add words for explanation. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • "a medley of hits"..... more of the same problem
  • No mention here of this track or any tour, only has a video of the group performing "Don't Cha"

Another section done. More to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, you should implement a citation that specifically notes whether a song overall receives favorable/mixed/unfavorable reviews
  • ✓, removed first phrase
  • Only the name "Rob" is given for Official Charts Company, and I wouldn't be so quick to assume it's short for Robert when "Robin" is another possibility (even if less likely)
  • Yahoo! News (a more specific link you probably meant to use) shouldn't have italics
  • I'd elaborate a bit on the Rolling Stone review as "praised the 'bouncy pop tune'" feels incomplete, maybe on how it calls this "catchy". Also, there should be a comma after "God".
  • See previous comments on Buzzfeed

To be continued..... SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that Vents is a PR website. That description is lifted directly from The Pussycat Dolls' PR management and is not the view of a music critic and should not be included here per WP:PRSOURCE. Cool Marc ✉ 21:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolmarc:, good spot! Thank you for that note, I've removed the phrase/commentary from the critical reception section. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media impact reception

[edit]
  • Not sure I'd call this "impact"

Sexual image

[edit]
  • Calling something "sexy" (another way of saying someone finds it appealing, taken from "their sexy dance moves") is an opinion and feels repetitive anyway when "sexual nature" is already mentioned in the sentence
  • "the comedy nature" → "the comedic nature"
  • Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't give any indication that the Ant and Dec performance got any more fewer complaints than the one on The X-Factor: Celebrity
  • ✓ The Interview response was responding to group receiving more complaints (in general) about their performances not that the Ant and Dec performance received more complaints. The sentence(s) are saying that despite making the performance comedic, more people complained about the Pussycat dolls performing "React" on TV. The intention isn't to say that one performance received more complaints than another nor do I think that is how it reads. I've changed the phrasing to say that despite being comedic, the group's performance once again got complaints. Hopefully that is what you meant?
  • Actually, I meant how the given ref doesn't seem to support the claim "although the number was smaller than those received for The X Factor performance" (writing "more" was an error on my part). That should be removed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓, that makes more sense. It is implied across the two sources but I appreciate its a little WP:SYNTHy the way its written so I've removed that :) → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -

Criticism of media coverage

[edit]
  • What makes Junkee a viable source?
  • There seems to be a stray quotation mark at the end of "cut to another segment"
  • ✓ fixed
  • "slammed" doesn't seem like the most professional tone

Up next will be "Chart performance". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

[edit]
  • An in-text citation should be provided for Israel
  • The repeated use of "debuted" is a bit much; try interspersing synonyms like "opened" and "entered" so the prose doesn't feel so monotonous
  • Not sure "all of the group's singles released in the UK to date have charted in the top-forty" is really relevant.
  • not changed its context so rather than saying the song was or wasn't successful its context to how its performed in general. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • This doesn't say or even suggest "React" is the group's first entry on the UK Indie Chart, only how it entered at number 4 on that

Get through these, then more will follow. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

[edit]

Main video

[edit]
Background Development
[edit]
  • "Production" or "Development" seem like more appropriate titles for this subsection
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • When the Pussycat Dolls are an American group, "14 January 2020" should follow the American MDY format (January 14, 2020) as opposed to DMY.
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • TooFab overall seems like a dubious publication, so I'd opt for something stronger.
✓, replaced with Metro → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
Concept and synopsis
[edit]
  • I've been very careful to use a limited screenshot that is explained by the caption. The license on the image page clearly states "It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question. I believe this does satisfy the conditions of WP:NFCC#8.
  • Mirror and Metro are subpar citations that I recommend replacing
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Entertainment Weekly has already been linked earlier, so unlink it here per WP:OVERLINK
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
✓ removed, the site has been hacked. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Use double quotation marks for "human teepee" (meaning " as opposed to the single ')
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • "the most intense thing I’ve ever done" → "the most intense thing I've ever done" (more MOS:CURLY and I've evidently underestimated how much this was previously used in the article)
✓ I was not of how much they copy over when you're copying a quotation! → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Don't italicize CNN when that's a network
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
Reception Release and reception
[edit]
  • Maybe you could rename this as "Release and reception" given the bits on YouTube views, and at least somewhere in the main video's section there should be a mention of its release date, even if not in this subsection
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • More WP:OVERLINK with Entertainment Weekly
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Us Weekly (aka Us Magazine) is a horrid gossip rag that shouldn't be trusted or used as a reference
✓ swapped for People and Vulture→ Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • "Scherzinger taking centre stage"..... this should be takes, so maybe also change "despite" to "even though"
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • See previous comments on CNN, and you don't need to link it again per WP:OVERLINK
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • I'm sure you can find something better than PopSugar
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -
  • Again, Metro isn't ideal
  • For the YouTube views, you seem to have misplaced the citations; New York Post should be attached to 340K within 90 minutes while GMA News belongs with the 1.5M in a day.
✓ removed → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -

I'll get to the alternate videos next. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate videos

[edit]
Cash Cash remix video
[edit]
  • This seems rather short with only two sentences. Can you expand it with reviews or anything else?
Acoustic video
[edit]
  • CelebMix is a poor source. I have no doubt you can find something stronger.

Track listing and versions

[edit]
  • With only three entries, I'm not convinced these need to be split into columns
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's something I missed, this doesn't include any duration for the original version
  • Making the text smaller than it naturally would be makes it harder on the eyes to read and is frowned upon per MOS:FONTSIZE
✓ → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 10:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel and credits

[edit]
  • No issues at all

Getting closer! Hopefully I can get the rest in one go in my next batch of comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

[edit]
  • ✓ I didn't list either to be fair. But under investigation it looks like they were added by fans and incorrectly dated etc. so I've removed both. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) -

Release history

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • All citations should have authors were applicable, and date formats should all be in MDY or DMY format per MOS:DATE (meaning the "YYYY-MM-DD" format needs to be altered). Since this article is for a song by an American group, I recommend using MDY.
  • Don't italicize MTV News, Digital Spy, Heart FM, ca.news.yahoo.com (which should read Yahoo! News), Musickarana.se (which should read "Musicmakarana"), umusicpub.com (which should read Universal Music Publishing Group), iol.co.za (which should be Independent Online), Idolator, FemaleFirst.co.uk (also delete the ".co.uk"), Inquistr, Spotify, officialcharts.com (which should read Official Charts Company), Twitter, HungerTV, YouTube, buzzfeed.com (which should be BuzzFeed), eonline.com (which should be E!), home.nzcity.co.nz (which should read NZCity), Nova FM 96.9, Hungertv.com (which should be HungerTV), Amazon.co.uk (which should be Amazon), Allmusic (which should have its M capitalized), 917thewave.com.au (which should read 91.7 The Wave), Junkee, Music-news.com (which should have its N capitalized), theofficialcharts.com (also should read as Official Charts Company), YouTube.com (remove the ".com"), Vulture, bradleyandpablo.co.uk (which should read "Bradley&Pablo"), or CNN
  • Ventsmagazine.com → Vents Magazine
  • Gaytimes.co.uk → Gay Times
  • Rap-Up.com → Rap-Up
  • standard.co.uk → The Evening Standard
  • Reference#36 is missing "Official Charts Company" in its publisher/work field
  • rollingstone.com → Rolling Stone
  • List.co.uk → The List
  • Out.com → Out
  • "Huffington Post" and "Huffington Post.co.uk" should read HuffPost
  • Papermag.com → Paper
  • thetimeshub.in → The Times Hub
  • Nypost.com → New York Post

Overall

[edit]
  • Prose: A bit of merging should be done for the alternate videos
  • Referencing: Citation formatting needs work. Also, I still can't verify the content for The Times Hub, and the lead has an unsourced mention of acclaim that should be deleted. Music video release date still needs sourcing within article body. A couple of insufficiently supported chart peaks should be either removed or re-cited.
  • Coverage: Mostly good. We need Ireland to be included in "Chart performance" and an in-prose mention outside of lead talking about the main video's release (these somehow still haven't happened). Also, for the video screenshot, I recommend including some commentary (preferably from critics) specifically focusing the scene shown as that would help justify its inclusion per NFCC requirements.
  • Neutrality: No bias found
  • Stability: Nothing of concern
  • Media: All images have appropriate licensing
  • Verdict: On hold for now. Effective immediately, if all of the remaining concerns are addressed within the next seven days, then I will pass the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:21, 19 May 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:React_(The_Pussycat_Dolls_song)/GA1&oldid=957798931"