Talk:Who Is It (Björk song)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'll be reviewing this over the course of today. ceranthor 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose Comments

• In the lead, all the quotes should have citations per MOS:QUOTE. It doesn't matter that they're quoted later in the article; they should be attributed with a footnote.
• "Björk then approached the song again during the recording sessions for Medúlla and was renamed "Who Is It"." - Grammar is incorrect here; should be "and the song was renamed "Who Is It", probably.
• "It features collaborations by throat-singer Tanya Tagaq and beatboxer Rahzel," - how can a singular song feature collaborations? I think you should rewrite this as "Björk collaborated on the song with..."
• "It also fared well commercially, peaking at the top five in Spain and reaching the top 30 in Italy and the United Kingdom" - You should clarify which charts.
• "The video depicts Björk wearing a bell-shaped dress whilst several children are dressed in clothes covered in small jingle bells that fall off of them" - Surely you could come up with a more descriptive verb to describe the children's behavior than "they are dressed in clothes"?
• "and received cover versions by Bon Iver and Kurt Elling." - Received covers doesn't work. "was covered by Bon Iver and Kurt Elling" would be better.
• "Björk approached him during his show in London in 2000" - Which show? A little more detail would go a long way here.

Could not find anything about a show by Bogdan Raczynski in this city and date!

• "they met in New York and wrote a song titled "Embrace Fortress" during the final recording sessions for her fourth studio album Vespertine (2001)." - the tone here is a bit off, as it makes it sound like they met haphazardly to write a song. Tighten this sentence a bit.
• "Björk then approached the song again during the recording sessions for Medúlla and was renamed "Who Is It"." - Same note as for the lead; this sentence has incorrect grammar as the nouns / verbs don't agree after "and was renamed..."
• "She explained that it was the one song that Matmos helped her with – they did "fruit-machine-noises" that are in the choruses." - Who is Matmos and what else did he contribute? Also, since you quote the source, you should cite the source at the end of this sentence.
• ""Who Is It" features collaborations by throat-singer Tanya Tagaq and beatboxer Rahzel.[4] " - same note as lead
• "reflect a "mother's unconditional love" in a dialogue between mother and child." - needs a citation for the quote
• "She accessorised the outfit with leather boots and a mask made from hair, and double buns" - try to clarify what you mean by "double buns" since the general reader would find that confusing.
• "In the video, Björk wears the bell-shaped dress designed by McQueen,[25] and several children are dressed in clothes covered in small jingle bells that fall off of them." - a little more exciting description that captures the video's vivid details would be better here
• "It was sold for £44,000, over a high estimate of £15,000, " - what does it mean to be "over a high estimate"? Doesn't make sense to me

Sources

• What makes [1] a reliable source?

It is a very cited website in music articles, personally I find it reliable since it is owned by a respectable corporation, but if you think it's better not cited in the article, I will remove it

• What makes [2] a reliable source?

As per Record charts/Sourcing guide

Copyvio

• The article paraphrases the sentence about Matmos too closely. The source says "This is the one song that Matmos helped me with - they did fruit-machine-noises that are in the choruses." The article's text is too similar: "She explained that it was the one song that Matmos helped her with – they did "fruit-machine-noises" that are in the choruses."
• Same issue with the bell dress bit. The source says, "Lee did a brief outline sketch of the shape which Björk liked. The finished dress was flown to her in Iceland for filming - with no further discussion or fittings." while the article's version says "She asked him for an outfit "that looked like a bell". He then did a brief outline sketch of the shape, which she liked. The dress was sent to her in Iceland for filming, with no further discussion or fittings."
• The quote, "complex superstructures, catchy but ghostly, and they probably haven't seen their final incarnation. Their spaces are not just a matter of serene artistic restraint. They are also invitations, offering both places where listeners can take refuge and openings for musical transformation that could carry the songs from Bjork's inner landscape to less subtle, more communal spheres, like dance floors." is too long. I'd take highlights from it instead.

Formatting

• There are no disambiguation links.
• References are all intact; no broken or recently archived links.

This looks to be in decent shape, but needs some more work before passing. ceranthor 22:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks. Alex ^talk 01:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@11JORN: No problem. Have my comments all been fixed? ceranthor 01:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Yes, I forgot to mention. If you have any doubt, contact me. Alex ^talk 12:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am passing the article, as I think it now meets the GA criteria. ceranthor 18:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.