Jump to content

Talk:Reflection (song)/GA1

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: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (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. See below (bit by bit) Seems up to par in my opinion.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Seems fine
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See below Looks fine
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). See below Looks fine
2c. it contains no original research. Seems fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See below Looks fine
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). See below Good
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Seems fine
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Untouched for two weeks. Stable per criteria.
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. See below Good
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good
7. Overall assessment.
  • 1A
Lead
  • Too much information. Cut back on the background information, focus on stuff regarding the song .
  • "In the months before the recording of the track, Aguilera was searching for a record deal and after starting communications with record label RCA, the label gave her the chance to record the theme song to the film Mulan." -- How about trimming this? Perhaps something like "In the months before the recording of the track, Aguilera approached RCA, which gave her the chance to record the theme song to the film Mulan."
  • Year "Run to You" was released is irrelevant; I've removed it.
  • "After Disney heard the performance and were impressed, they contacted Aguilera... " is awkward. Perhaps "After Disney representatives were impressed by her performance, they contacted Aguilera... "
  • "Despite being exhausted, Aguilera stayed to watch the orchestral band record the instrumental." (my wording) -- May need to be trimmed from the lead entirely, as it is not pertinent to the song.
Background and reception
  • "Due to the financial state of the record label RCA, which Aguilera had started communications with, which at the time was no longer a contender with the larger labels, the album deal that Aguilera had wished for did not take long to progress. " -- This is just a big run-on sentence. How about "Aguilera approached record label RCA, then having financial difficulties, and was told to contact Disney," or something else short and sweet.
  • "After she was asked to perform a musical note required for "Reflection", she thought this was the gateway into the album deal." -- Perhaps "After she was asked to hit a musical note required for "Reflection", she thought that the song could be the gateway into an album deal."
  • "Aguilera spent hours recording an amateur performance of Whitney Houston's "Run to You"." -- She was by definition an amateur at the time; also, you haven't included that "the note" was in the song. Perhaps "Aguilera spent hours recording a cover of Whitney Houston's "Run to You", which included the note she was asked to hit."
  • "The label laid the foundation for the album immediately and started presenting Aguilera with tracks for her debut album, which they later decided would have a January 1999 release, the same month as Britney Spears's ...Baby One More Time." -- Trim Spears, methinks.
Critical response
  • "The song's role was not to gain critical acclaim at the time but to gain Aguilera notability amongst the music industry, somewhat of a promotional tool for her at the time forthcoming debut album." -- Somewhat wordy. Perhaps "Aguilera saw the song not as a way to gain critical acclaim, but as a promotional tool to gain notice in the music industry before the release of her debut album." I think it reads a bit better.
  • Not quite sure what Tranter meant with "nice song, without said icky-pop beat that Christina effortlessly does justice to." Perhaps paraphrasing it to make it clearer?
Chart performance
  • I've made some changes and would appreciate your feedback.
Music videos and live performances
  • I've made some changes and would appreciate your feedback.
  • 2A: Who is Dominguez? You cite him several times but the book isn't referenced in full. A couple notes for posterity, I cannot do any spotchecks for the offline source (don't own the book, getting it in Indonesia would take months). Checking the sheet music, it supports the information, as do the Amazon review and PopMatters review.
  • 2B: I'll accept Amazon only because it is showing that the product exists. Regarding reference formatting, you should use a non-ambiguous format (i.e. 20 October 1999 or October 20, 1999; not 1999-10-20). Mixing the websites and harv citations looks a little messy in my opinion; clean up would be appreciated, but is not part of the GA criteria.
  • 3A: Which note was the one that changed her life? Not knowledgeable about notes, but I'm sure that it would be important to note. (no pun intended)
  • 3B: "... the same month as Britney Spears's ...Baby One More Time" is completely irrelevant. The background section is touchy in places, but as "Reflection" essentially launched her career I think it is good to have.
  • 6A: Another second needs to be trimmed from the sound clip (Is currently 22 seconds, while the song is 214 seconds; that's just a bit over 10%). An image of the singer would be nice too, especially if one is available from that period (1998 - 2000). I personally like File:Christina Aguilera Sanremo.jpg, but it is from 2006. Up to you what you want to do.
Summary: Still in progress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, all the changes I made can be seen here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the changes you have done. They really look better. I also have fixed all the issues you addressed, I think. The book doesn't specify which note Aguilera had to reach, not the name of the critics that considered the song predictable. About the references, there is no problem in doing so; several GAs such as ...Baby One More Time (song) and Like a Prayer (song) use them exactly like this one. Same with date format, both articles also use the same format as this one. - Saulo Talk to Me 14:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, perhaps. I'll do the formatting myself if you prefer. Don't forget, we have foreign readers who may read 2011-10-02 as 10 February and not 2 October.
Was the "Gold Classic Edition" in 1998? If I have the same one, it is like 10 years afterwards.
Song has been trimmed.
Have you done a thorough check of the literature on the subject regarding the note? It may be somewhere out there.
Almost there! Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Amazon says the release year is 1998. Also, I'm searching for the "note" info, but I'm ain't seeing a thing... I'll keep searching. - Saulo Talk to Me 20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reflection_(song)/GA1&oldid=1142324189"