Talk:Skirt (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 00:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Both the lead and the infobox describe this song as a promotional single, but this is not discussed in the actual article or supported with a citation.

I found two interviews in that Minogue referred to "Skirt" as a "buzz track" rather than a single and made a note about this. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the infobox both use EDM while the article uses electronic dance. I would be consistent with one or the other.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says the song was first released on 28 May 2013, but the infobox uses the later date.

The track was published on SoundCloud on 28 May, and released as a remix EP on 24 June (per RocNation). The template instruction said the Released section indicates "the commercial release date". Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prose for the lead's first paragraph feels stilted. The first four sentences are structured rather similarly so further variation would keep the prose more dynamic and engaging as a whole. I would also avoid starting two sentences in a row with the song title. I get why the second instance is done as a different song is named in the previous sentence, but it still contributes to the prose feeling off.

I rewrote the section. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended play should be linked and full spelled out on its first use in the lead and in the article.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would link sample as some readers may be less familiar with the concept.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was there every official confirmation that "Skirt" was in any way, shape, or form connected with Kiss Me Once. I ask this as the lead says this is a promotional single from that album, but I am not fully convinced this is the case. I might be missing this, but the only citation I see that discusses this is a music critic saying that the song was not on the album, but I was wondering if there was a more official connection. Minogue even said that this was a teaser and not representative of the album. I would think further citations would be necessary to fully support that connection.

You're right! Minogue stated "Skirt" is a buzz track while the album was still being recorded in 2013, therefore I agreed that there is no connection between the track and the album. I rewrote the statement. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong. I love this song, but this wording, (that delves into sexual seduction), gives the song too much credit in my opinion. When I think of "delves", I think of something that really analyzes and gets into a matter. This song does not do that. I would simplify this part to (that is about sexual seduction). I have the same comment for the wording in the article.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

What makes the following citations reliable and high-quality for a GA: Tunebat.com, Gottadancedirty.com, The Music Ninja, Your Music Radar, Relentless Beats, MMensuel, Radio Creme Brulee, and Earmilk?
Idolator and MuuMuse are not considered great sources for Wikipedia so I would replace them both with other sources when possible and remove them.

1. I found Tunebat.com on several Taylor Swift GAs ("Cardigan", "The Lakes") and included it in "Skirt" to support the composition section. (Kylie has limited entries on Musicnotes).

2. Gottadancedirty, along with another DJ-related site Nitrus, founded the sublabel DirtyNitrus that distributed the Shake & Bake EP. The article is an announcement about the EP, therefore I figured this site could be included (Should I make a note about this sublabel to make Gottadancedirty more credible within the context of this article?)

3. While I agree that Radio Creme Brulee is not the best source, I found its review of "Skirt" to be informative and detailed, especially for a lesser-known track like "Skirt". It is one of my primary sources for the Composition paragraph.

Other than that, I removed the rest of the sites you mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid putting words in all caps in the citation titles.

I changed the HuffPost source title based on your comment. Other all-caps words in these citations ("ACE", "CODER", "EMI") are abbreviations. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Items like Kiss Me Once and The Abbey Road Sessions should be italics to meet with WP:CONFORMTITLE.

The 'KMO' title refers to the Kiss Me Once Tour, not the album, so I believe it should not be italicized. I removed the 'Abbey Road' source. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citation uses a mixture of title case and sentence case. I believe title case is the one that is recommended so I would go there.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the "Media notes" subsection, Kylie Minogue should be linked in at least the first instance (depending on how you link items). Since you have linked websites/publishers for each citation in the previous subsection, I would link here for each instance here.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a deeper dive into the sources later in the review, but I wanted to point these issues out first.

Background and production

The prose here could use some work. The jump from the first paragraph to the second is jarring as it is not in chronologically order and covers two different topics. All this information is important obviously, but the way it is presented is less than ideal. I will return to this section later in the review. It is tough to fully review the prose since I am recommending large changes.

I tweaked the section a little bit. Is it better now? :D

I would encourage you to link B-side for readers unfamiliar with the concept.

Linked the word. Damian Vo (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This quote, ("She's honestly a very warm human being and a great artist. 'Skirt' rocks!"), is nice, but feels unnecessary so I would remove it.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason why this song was released through Lake's label as opposed to Minogue's?

Lake did not mention anything about RocNation during interviews. Maybe this really was a standalone promo that had nothing to do with KMO and RocNation. Damian Vo (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

I am not sure about how the sample is discussed. A solid portion of the previous section is spent on "Shake & Bake" so it seems odd to only mention the sample now.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music critics should be linked to be consistent with the lead.

Linked. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think an audio sample would be more beneficial for readers here than an image of the producer? The image does not quite fit the section anyway as the information in the caption is represented in other sections.

I moved the image to the Release section. I usually avoid uploading non-free media files in my articles, apart from the cover artwork. Damian Vo (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release and remixes

For this part, (The release was made without any prior official announcement; Minogue announced), I would avoid announcement/announced as it is repetitious.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this sentence, (It was speculated that "Skirt" would be the first track taken from Minogue's then-upcoming studio album.), clarify in the prose who is doing the speculating.

I removed the sentence along with the obscure sites you mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I would try to vary the prose here more as the sentences all kind of have the same "X critic says Y opinion" so it makes this section less engaging than it could be.

I rewrote this part based on your comments. Is it better now? Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a lot better to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be beneficial to separate out the retrospective reviews from the contemporary ones. They do not necessarily have to be separate paragraphs, but I think intermingling the two can cause unnecessary confusion that is best avoided.
Since a paragraph is devoted to how critics wished "Skirt" was on Kiss Me Once, I would say that makes it notable enough to briefly mention in the lead.

I removed several obscure publications and merged the KMO paragraph with retrospective reviews. Does the KMO part still notable enough for the lead? Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to this point. Since it is no longer a separate point in that section, I would not think it is notable enough to mention in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the parts on when the song entered the chart. Unless there is something notable about it, it is not particularly informative or important enough to include here.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

I am confused by this part (Vanessa Bruno, and Jimmy Choo stilettos). What item by Bruno is she wearing?

The brand is mentioned in the official video post from Nowness. I removed the brand as I could not identify the item in the video either. Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

For the "Release history" table, I would use "Various" rather than "Worldwide". I have been advised to do this in the past as one cannot guarantee that everyone in the world could access this song on that day for various reasons.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final words

I hope this review is helpful. As I have said above, I really enjoy this song, and it is one that I still go back to and enjoy. I hope that I do not come across as too harsh or rude in my review. I just want to work with you to make the article the best that it could possibly be. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again and make further comments at that point. That's when I will do a fuller and more complete dive in the sources, etc. I hope you are doing well and having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Damian Vo: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to say that I have noticed the edits to the article so far. Please let me know whenever everything has been addressed on the review page. There is absolutely no rush. More so just to be sure that this 100%, absolutely clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: My apologies for disappearing without any notice. I have the most ridiculous schedule ever; I barely had the time to sit down and reach the laptop. I am finally back and trying my best to fix the issues you mentioned :D Thank you for picking another article of mine for review, and this did not come across as harsh or rude at all. I have always appreciated and embraced helpful feedback from experienced editors like you to enhance the quality of GA articles. Again, thank you for your patience :D Damian Vo (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and no apologies necessary. There is absolutely no rush on this and other life things should take priority over Wikipedia so I completely understand. Best of luck with your schedule and I hope that everything you are working on and doing with that goes as well and as smoothly as possible. It has been a while since I have done a GAN review so I just wanted to make sure. I really enjoyed reading through this article, especially since it is about a song that I really enjoyed (and wish got a better promotional push lol). I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I just made some edits based on your comments above. Please let me know if you have any more questions. P/S I absolutely love your recent work on "Hot Sugar" and "My Man". Good luck with your FAN! Damian Vo (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Damian Vo: Thank you for the very kind words! I agree with all of your edits and comments. I can understand wanting to avoid putting non-free media into article, and the article is still strong without it. I just have a few quick questions about the citation formatting.
  - For the "Media notes" subsection, is there a reason why the citations are not alphabetically organized? For the "Websites and print sources" citations, it seems that the sources without author(s) and those with author(s) are alphabetized separately. Is there a reason for this and not alphabetizing them all together since they are all under one subsection? I hope that makes sense, but please let me know if it does not. Once this is addressed, I will pass this as a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I corrected the citation in the "Media notes" section, which was a silly mistake on my part. I separated the author and non-author sources, a formatting style that I found appealing and organized, upon seeing the same format in Teflon's Aaliyah and Love for Sale. While Teflon labeled them as Anonymous, I personally found that designation to be redundant. Damian Vo (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Thank you for addressing everything. I ✓ Pass this article as a GA. I hope you have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! Good luck with your FAN and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]