Jump to content

Talk:Wait Your Turn/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: —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Status: Currently reviewing.[reply]

That's alright, as long as it has a reviewer I don't mind! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-review

[edit]

Calvin, before asking for anything, would it be possible to expand the following sections? Please don't take this in the wrong direction, but to be honest, I find it irritating how Rihanna reveals so little information about her songs. I hope this isn't all the information there is on this song.

  • Chart performance – I am doubtful if this can be expanded, but it never hurts to ask.
    That is literally all there is, just those four charts with sources. They literally debuted on those charts, then fell out within a few weeks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing how it isn't a single, I can see that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]
    It did chart on the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, but the link that was provided before I started c/e no longer existed, and I can't find another source to support it either. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception – Yes, this section doesn't exist and that's what I want from you. You can try using excerpts from album reviews of Rated R. Some research links that refer to the song: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Links that specifically discuss the song after its leak: [9] [10] [11] [12]
    Thanks, I'll add them today.
    Sorry I meant Rated R, those are RR links, though. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ]
    Have added quite a large section about the reception of the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video – Is there any other information that could possibly added to this really small section? Reception? Anything? They didn't just release the video and the media had no reaction whatsoever, did they?
    Plenty of media outlets reported on the video, but they didn't really give a review. They just said "Here is the video, it's out now". I have expanded the synopsis with that of the one given by MTV though. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no set amount of time to get this done, but I am not going to begin looking for issues in the article before you can respond to my raised questions above as it is better to scan the finished product instead. Yes, I am aware this wasn't a single, but I just wanted to know how much this page can be expanded. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing, the song should have personnel if I'm right, shouldn't it? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin reviewing then. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

OVERALL: Informative, but there are lots of prose issues everywhere and references have to be formatted better. I have listed specifically what needs to be done.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Discussion below.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Discussion below.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    It shouldn't take you too long to fix these issues.
    Update: This article may be in risk of quick-fail: Will not pass until all disputes and issues from non-reviewers have been resolved and a final round of prose errors have been raised by Wikipedian Penguin and addressed.


Review comments

[edit]

If you do a whole section at once, just put  Done at the bottom instead of putting one after every issue listed here to avoid clutter. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Lead
  • "Barbadian recording artist Rihanna" Use correct originality term.
  • "recording artist Rihanna taken from her fourth studio album" Comma after Rihanna.
  • "The song was written by Tor Erik Hermansen, Mikkel S. Eriksen, Saul Milton, Will Kennard, James Fauntleroy II, Takura Tendayi, and Robyn "Rihanna" Fenty, and was produced by StarGate and Chase & Status."
    • I don't like the way the sentence is laid out for some reason. The birth name rule does not apply to the article prose. Its best you refer to StarGate and Chase & Status members collectively for the writing credits and unlink the second time you refer to them.
    • "Robyn "Rihanna" Fenty" → Just "Rihanna"'s good.
  • "as the second single from the album, however, it was later announced" After "album" it is grammatical to use a semi-colon instead of a comma.
  • "with several commenting" - Noun plus -ing is discouraged in Wikipedia. Reword that.
  • The lead should list more places the song was performed in.
  • "shot by long time collaborator" → "directed by Rihanna's long time collaborator"

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition
Critical reception
  • "and 'S.O.S.,." Where's the closing quote for "'S.O.S.'"? What's with the extra full stop/period at the end?
  • "winding thuds of buzz single, 'Wait Your Turn.'"" Use {{'}} instead of a normal apostrophe after "Turn."
  • "'I’m such a fucking lady" You refer to that lyric three times. Is there any way around that repetition?
  • "her style of singing, saying "Throughout, Rihanna" Comma after "saying".
  • " 'Hard,' 'G4L,' and 'Wait Your Turn.'"" Use the template I told you to use above here as well for WYT.
  • "move on from her innocent "Umbrella" pop star image" Link "Umbrella".
  • "auto-tuned vocals repeat "The wait is ova / The wait is ova" ad nauseam" Use single quotes for those lyrics as this is within a quotation.
  • "Prior to Greenblatts album review" Missing an apostrophe.
  • ""'Wait Your Turn (The Wait Is Ova)' continues the dark feel of the first single from the Rated R project 'Russian Roulette.' There is a bit of a Caribbean vibe with a light reggae beat and Rihanna slipping into a Caribbean accent at times. The leaked track sounds a bit like it may still be unfinished and only a demo version. As it is, for me it's difficult to imagine "Wait Your Turn (The Wait Is Ova)" a smash pop hit in the making."[18]" That is one huge quote.

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance
  • "on the week ending November 26, 2009, on the Irish Singles Chart" Is there supposed to be an "of" after "ending"?
  • "where it remained for one week" → "remaining there for one week" Repetitive reference of "where".
  • You don't have to specify the year each time you mention a date, because it's all the same year.

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music video
Live performances
  • "Rihanna performed the song as part of a set list" → "She performed..."
  • "which included songs from Rated R" Just say "the album" this time.
  • "and Umbrella" Quotes plz.
  • "ith the second single released from the album, "Hard"" "Hard" overlink.
  • Link Vincent Price.
  • "Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video." → "Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video." Link to Michael Jackson's Thriller.
  • "covering her privates" → "...privates parts"
    The entire synopsis is a quote, and the article it is from says "privates". Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why aren't there quotation marks then? I don't like the fact of replacing original prose with quotes, especially in a GA, no matter how well-written the quotation is. Not to mention, using a substantial part of an article for quotation is clearly not fair use per the link I give above. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frankenstein style" Not a very NPOV choice of wording.
    Same as above. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "strapped into a X-shaped rigging" Use "an", not "a".
    Same as above. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "thrum of her single "Wait Your Turn" filled the air." It sounds like you're narrating a horror film.
    Same as above. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "As dancers with white shotguns swirled around and a nest of TV sets behind her displayed static, Rihanna stepped down from the cross and strutted amid towers of flames shooting up from the stage, then Rihanna transitioned in "Hard", with lasers searching the air, the lights dimmed and red tracer beams shot out of the studs on her shoulder pads and the song ended with a group of backup dancers wearing plexiglass boxes on their heads over gas masks and wielding the aforementioned firearms took aim while Rihanna raised her arms in triumph and a voice warned: "Rihanna's reign ain't gonna let up."[34]" This is too long of a sentence.
    Same as above. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "transitioned in "Hard"" Wrong preposition.
    Same as above. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Rihanna made an appearance on Good Morning America to perform songs" Italics for GMA.
  • "by a group of dancers who were all dressed in black." Comma after "dancers".
Credits and personnel
Track listing
  • Is it necessary to have all those references when they all give the same info? Remove at least one.

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • I see some inconsistency with the use of {{cite news}}. Refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 should use {{cite news}} (including ones that already use the template). The rest should use {{cite web}}.
  • For some refs you use MTV News as the work while others you use just MTV. Be consistent for which one you're going to use.
  • Not understanding the use of ref 2.
  • Refs 4 and 6: Digital Spy should not be in italics.
  • The countries for the iTunes refs shouldn't be in italics.
  • For ref 9, use the language= parameter in the cite template to specify language.
  • Ref 3 uses the wrong date format.
  • Ref 27 and 28: Hyphen and italics for Rap-Up.
  • Ref 30: Rap-Up → Rap-Up Italics.
  • Ref 37: Link Allmusic.

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]

Nothing is said of the song's writing or recording. These are the most integral aspects of a song article, so I am surprised that the reviewer has already marked as being met criterion #3. I will initiate a reassessment if the article passes in its current state, so I implore the reviewer to reconsider his position. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I will mark 3a as on hold and wait for a response from the nominator. Oh, and please don't use level 2 headings in a GA review. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merely writing who wrote and produced the song is not sufficient. (That info should have been included, anyway, as it was already in the infobox summary.) Further discussion of the writing and recording is necessary. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like? Not all GA article have this information, mainly because it isn't known. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this article that you are reviewing? That article also has a fleshed-out "Composition" section, which is another aspect that's highly important to a GA-level treatment of the subject. If such information isn't included here because it isn't available, then I would say this article cannot be promoted. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say none, I said not all. I just looked through a selection of GAs and found multiple articles that do not feature the recording location. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any idiot can review a GAN and apply the criteria poorly. No doubt there are dozens of pop music GAs in need of reassessment. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call not having the place of recording a cause for GAR. I don't even look at where it was recorded when I read articles. I can think of other things which are more important than that which calls for GAR. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my second comment in this thread. I'm not looking for factoids, I'm looking for depth. See Smells Like Teen Spirit for a FA-level example of what depth looks like. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But do you understand that not all songs have that level of info? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The criteria for FAs are more rigorous than they are for GAs. This article doesn't meet GA criterion #3a, in my opinion, as how the song came to be is a main aspect of the subject that is critical to our understanding. The imbalance I'm seeing in this article is like an article about Hawaii that only discusses how many people visit every year (Chart performance) and how magazine writers have described the place (Critical reception). It's history and geography (Writing and recording) are more critical to our understanding. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see where the lack of info about the song is though. I've written about how it was originally going to be the second single, but Hard was chosen, then how it was used as a promotional single instead, an interview about the song by Rihanna, who wrote and produced, the genres, how it is different from any of her previous work and the release dates. It's only a promotional single, not a fully fledged single, hence why it does not have a lot of info about it. It's not like S&M or Umbrella or a huge hit. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have the album, i will add the proper credits shortly. Two Hearted, this comment is directed at you. Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#.283.29_Broad_in_its_coverage "Point A means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects.". Credits and Personnel is required as that is available, the recording however, may not be and you cannot imply your personal standard of what you think is comprehensive if something is not available, that is an FA issue, not a GA issue. (going to add Credits and personnel now) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unmoved by your quoting an essay that is not official policy. I've given an example of what comprehensiveness looks like in a song article. I would be satisfied if there were half that level of detail here. Information about how the song was written (was it written with Rihanna in mind?), what kind of discussions took place among the songwriters, what each writer contributed, what input Rihanna had, what kind of decisions the producer made about instrumentation/arrangements/etc., how difficult was vocal recording, how many takes were required...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, would all be insightful. It doesn't all need to be here for GA, but we have to go beyond the basic, "It was written by so-and-so and produced by so-and-so." That provides no insight – every recorded song has a writer and producer. The one good thing here is a quote from Rihanna about how she selected the song. From that, I can infer some useful information: the composition was mostly complete before it ever got to her, but she probably had some kind of input since she's credited as a writer. Let's expand on that. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a promotional single in the GAN process, not a huge single going through FAC. FAC does not apply to GAN. "Information about how the song was written (was it written with Rihanna in mind?), what kind of discussions took place among the songwriters, what each writer contributed, what input Rihanna had, what kind of decisions the producer made about instrumentation/arrangements/etc., how difficult was vocal recording, how many takes were required...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, would all be insightful." Once again, do you understand that not all songs have that information. This is a promo song that only charted on 4 charts, it's not a massive song where single microscopic detail is known. I don't think I have ever even seen an article say how many vocal recording sessions was needed before the finished product. Some people only do one take of their song. (Christina's Beautiful, Leona's Happy). It's all very well you saying "expand on that", but as I am sure you know, you need reliable and valid sources to back up your claims, so until you find them, as I haven't been able to find anything, the article stands as it is. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article stands as it is – B-class. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what the criteria are. Really, the writing and recording (and composition, if not conveyed by the previous two) are the only major aspects of a song article. The promotion, sales, critical reception and live performances are subsidiary – you could have a GA without any of them. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're well aware what the criteria is then you must know you are not allowed to review an article based upon what you personally think needs to be included. There is no rule stating what you want above is required. If you review that way you will more than likely find yourself with a block. If the information is not available, its not available, end of discussion. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The promotion, sales, critical reception and live performances are subsidiary – you could have a GA without any of them." Haha. None of my GAs have been able to pass without those. I'd like to see you find a GA that doesn't include any of those four. And you can't take this article once it has passed GA to GAR based on your own personal opinions. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would take it there based on my understanding of the criteria. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the major aspects of a song cannot be addressed in its article, the article does not meet criterion #3a and thus should not be promoted. Are you going to try to have me blocked for standing in the way of your friend's GAN? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have been addressed. That is all of the info about the song, when means it has been addressed. Why have you got it on your head that even a small article like this needs to be as detailed as the FA example you gave me? This song is not up for FAC and is only a SMALL article with not a load of info about it. And you knowledge seems to be very little. You are just being aggravating and trying to slow up the process. And it would look extremely bad on you if you nominate for GAR straight after it has passed GAN, as you are effectively saying the reviewer doesn't know what he is talking about. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's "only a SMALL article with not a load of info about it" – especially when it comes to the major aspects. It's really that simple. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not all articles are the vision which you seem to think that they should all be. The amount of information in this article is relevant to the status of the single. It's just a promo single, it doesn't make it any less worthy of being a GA because there is less information than articles 4 or 5 times the size of this article. The fact that a Background section mean's it is broad in its research and that it covers all aspects. If there was no Background section, you would have a valid point, but there is a Background section, so it's not valid. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would just have me examine the section headings and not the content within? By the way, three sentences in the "Background" section are out of place. The sentences about leaking, single selection and release date ought to be in the "Chart performance" section (which I would rename "Promotion and release" or something to that effect). Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't look good, nor would it be consistent with other Rihanna articles. And it actually makes no sense to put the Background and composition section into the Chart performance section. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you think the leak and release dates belong in the "Background" section goes a long way towards explaining why you don't seem to understand what the article is lacking. Recorded songs don't just appear out of thin air. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It used to say "Background, release and composition", but someone remove "release" is not needed and said that "Background" is apart of it. A song needs to be released before it can get reviews or chart. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a level 2 section called "Release and reception", include the leak and release dates, etc., then have level 3 sections called "Critical reception" and "Chart performance". Just a suggestion.Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What difference is it going to make? You are adamant on taking this article to GAR as soon as it is passed, so what difference does it make where the info is? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the goals of this place is to provide the best possible experience for the reader, and good organization is part of that. You're not only here to rack up 's, are you? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think I am only on here to rack up GAs? Do you really wanna start on me with that? If you had of done your research, you would know why I edit on Wikipedia. I only have 7 GAs. That's nothing compared to some people on here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then this will be my third GAN I fail this month, which I don't want. If Calvin can fix all issues quickly, then I have no problem waiting. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Sure. --Efe (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already re-worded the entire paragraph and put everything into my own words. There are no intricate details anymore. So those two banners shouldn't apply now. But that's up to you Penguin (don't know your real name!) to decide. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've written by own synopsis for the music video, so all three banners shouldn't apply anymore, but as i said before, that's for you to decide. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am discussing on the talk page but I'm not getting a reply... Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the one responsible for the tagging of the article with {{fancruft}} template, I have responded to the article's talk page. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I apologize for my absence. My Internet router wasn't working and it just got replaced.) As the reviewer, I want to keep my comments on this page. I agree that the live performance synopsis is overtly detailed. Calvin should make it much more brief and remove unnecessary detail and non-NPOV content. That will solve the issues with both banners. That is the last thing I ask for before doing one final check through the whole article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed over half the info there's hardly any now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it... —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's happening? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, forgot to give an update. I am currently preparing a final set of issues per section for you to address before passing. I should have that done today (your time). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final round

[edit]

This is it. If you can fix these issues within a matter of days, the article will pass. If not, then you know the rules. Note that this may also include points I forgot to mention in the previous review.

Lead
  • "a music video directed by Rihanna's long time collaborator Anthony Mandler." – You are missing a word.
  • "their production names StarGate and Chase & Status." – Add "respectively".
Background and composition
  • "in February 2009" – I told you to remove this. It's too irrelevant.
  • "with Rihanna singing" – Noun+ing.
  • "Mikkel S. Eriksen of StarGate, who co-produced the song" – Unlink both.
  • "musical genres which are very different to any of Rihanna's previous work" – Cut as specified. Redundant.
  • "The song made available" – Missing a word.
  • "on November 13, 2009" – Comma after "2009".
Critical reception
  • "Chicago Tribune noted Rihanna assumes" – Put in a "that".
  • Repetitive reference of those lyrics I mention in previous review.
Music video
  • "filmed in a black and white grainy fashion" – Put "and was" in the beginning.
  • "Rihanna changing outfits again wearing a black bra top" – Put a comma after "outfits".
  • "Rihanna wearing" Wann a take a guess
Live performances

I don't think you need a full week to finish this, but if you do, let me know. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't,  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

[edit]

Doing........ Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
I guess since always for GAs. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again loud. Lol. Jivesh • Talk2Me 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already raised that issue in my review. It was fixed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition

[edit]
Read it again. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]

There is enough information from the Critical Reception section to craft a stand-alone COMPOSITION section.

Critical reception

[edit]

Chart performance

[edit]

Music video

[edit]
  • including "Take a Bow" and "Rehab". >>> Years in brackets please.
    Since when do songs have the year placed in brackets? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
I have already replied to this (LEAD). Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

[edit]

Credits and personnel

[edit]

References (My favorite task)

[edit]

2. Fox News Channel should not be italicized.

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!

3, 5, 31, 32 & 27. Should be MTV News. Viacom

Yes for 3 only. Doing all is over linking. And 27 is Rap-Up, not MTV News. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17 & 18. Block letters in title not allowed for GA.

 Done Could only see one which was capitalised. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22. Link MTV UK

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!

23 & 24. Should be Australian Recording Industry Association. c

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30. Publisher is AOL Inc.

 Done, and it's 29, not 30. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done all. Thanks for reviewing. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, how do you feel about merging Critical reception and Chart performance? Per MOS:LAYOUT, it looks very choppy right now with the two short sections. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, Jivesh told me to expand the Composition section by putting reviews in from the Critical reception section which talk about her vocals and lyrics! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you are not willing the put the years. I just want to tell you that you should not consider that only points raised in your 7 previous GANS are relevant, any point raised by any reviewer should be taken into consideration. What will you do if tomorrow somebody else, tells you the same thing, then will you say this point was never raised in your first 7 reviews. Calvin, i am telling you for your own good that it is not polite to reply back to everything a reviewer points at. You may not realise it instantaneously but when you will become more experienced, you will know then that all those points were indeed relevant. Anyway, it was a pleasure doing that for you. Remember that we are friends and that i will always be here for you, SINCERELY. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered it, and I have explained with several reasons why I am not going to put 2010 everywhere in that section, not just about the 7 previous GANs. How is it not polite? I don't see how I am not being polite. Why should I not be able to answer to a raised point? I'm not saying that they aren't relevant, but I am entitled to respond if I want to, if something is not explained properly or I disagree with something. A reviewers comment doesn't automatically = "I am right and you must change it". Yes I know we are :) Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Calvin here, omitting the year will not cause any confusion for the reader. What happened in past GANs isn't really relevant. No need for the condescension regarding Calvin's experience, either. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never meant it that way but now if it is the way you took it, i cannot say anything more. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


P.S The song was made available to purchase via digital download on November 13, 2009, in Australia, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom

>>>is part of background.

The composition section you made is not what i wanted form you. But you will get it with time. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because you didn't explain what you wanted done specifically, so I did what you literally wrote. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Okay so I don't see why this can't be passed now? It's been going on wayyy too long! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be passed Calvin but it's not me who should do so. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yesssss, I know. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) By reviewing this article I learned why Rihanna GANs have had so much success, maybe a bit too much. But that will not be taken into account on the fate of this GAN and if there is anything else, I will not hesitate to bring it up. Patience is a virtue. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What??? And if you can't find anything, that means you should pass it, as well as the fact that everything has been done. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will pass it if that is the case. GAs should be passed if they meet the criteria, not if most errors have been raised and addressed. You were very lucky with this review and the fact that I decided to put it on hold. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to go into putting an article on hold, you was lucky too with LTWYL, which had serious prose issues. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up to the original reviewer that I will be taking this article to GAR if it passes in its current state, based on my reading of criterion #3a as it applies to song articles. That's not to say you shouldn't pass the nomination if there's no problem based on your reading of the criteria. But I suspect, based on the discussion, there are many recent song articles that have been promoted to GA with similar deficiencies, and I think community reassessment would be good for guidance moving forward. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reasoning for going to GAR?? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final words

[edit]

Any issues that were left unaddressed I fixed myself. I believe this article now satisfies the good article criteria. Two Hearted River can do whatever we wants, and I respect him in the sense that what he is bringing up is all in good faith. However, based on my understanding of the GA criteria, what they aren't, and my understanding that the criteria apply to all topics equally (including song articles), I feel confident about passing this article.

Mistakes to avoid... Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources ... Not noticing that a major aspect is completely omitted from the article, despite being discussed significantly in reliable sources.

— What the Good article criteria are not

[Criterion 3a:] This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

— Good article criteria

NOTE: I am not trying to persuade anyone who disagrees with me, I'm just stating how I look at the criteria. I would like to thank THR, Efe and Jivesh for adding comments to the review for the best interest of the article and Calvin for his patience and participation into the improvement of this article. Even though I can't participate in the GAR, I hope people will take my comments into consideration before reaching consensus, and I say this in the most neutral POV manner I can. This article passes. If anyone objects with my opinions, then they can take it out on my talk page as this review is closed.

Sincerely, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have you updating the article history etc.? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Somethings wrong with the Article History template though. It doesn't show the "This article has been identified as a good article blah blah blah". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). Yeah, it's been sorted now, Legolas was on it like a car bonnet. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wait_Your_Turn/GA1&oldid=1142447432"