Wikipedia:Peer review/Fight for This Love/archive1

Fight for This Love

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently recieved GA status. I think it is in excellent condition passing all examples of project based criteria from WP:NSONGS. Care has been used to ensure that only the most reliable of sources are used. I think its good enough for FA but thought I should try peer review first as this was my first GA and it will be my second attempt at FA (I already nominated another article for FA and I'm waiting to hear back so its quite nerve-wracking). It would be good if people could review and just state whether there is anything major missing or if the prose could be improved etc.

Thanks, Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article has plenty of information in it, and has obviously been well researched.

• Prose: I have only carried out a detailed prose check on the lead, and there is rather a lot in this short section that needs attention. This makes me feel that the whole article needs to be copyedited by an experienced prose reviewer. These people are not easy to find, but you could try editors who have some history of getting song articles through FAC. Here are my detailed lead points.
  • "...released in British Isles" What is meant by "British Isles"? Do you mean the United Kingdom? Needs a "the", anyway.
  • "...as lead single from the project..." What "project"?
  • "..."and later in 2010 for Europe through Universal Music." Clumsy, and why "for" Europe?
  • "mid-tempo" needs explanation. The song is described as "up-tempo" in the main body of the article, and that term isn't explained either.
  • "...the American songwriting team" → "an American songwriting team"
  • "demoed" isn't a real word. Either rephrase or find an alternative word.
  • I actually can't understand the sentence "Initially demoed with male vocals, Cole cited an instant connection to the song which has a noticeable synthy production", which also has faulty grammar.
  • "different to" → "different from"
  • ""Fight for This Love" divided music critics whilst some noted that the song was very much her style not all were positive about the vocals." Needs punctuating, and preferably the word "whilst" should be replaced by "while".
  • "...when Cole's marriage to footballer Ashley Cole broke down." → "...was breaking down."
  • Third paragraph: punctuation and words missing. Comma required after "X Factor" (which should be written as "The X Factor"); the word "in" should be inserted before Norway; comma required after Denmark.
• Article structure: the "Background and composition" section is very brief, while the "Promotion" section seems rather long and perhaps overdetailed. It is followed by a "Music video" section; no mention was made of the video in the lead, which is supposd to summarise all parts of the article. It also seems very odd to have the video section before the critical reception of the single. Incidentally, you should not include unexplained star ratings in the Critical reception section.
• Why is detailed recording information given for the "Didn't I" song, which is not the subject of the article?

That's all, really. As I am unable to watch my peer reviews, please contact my talkpage if you have issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all thank you for doing this. One thing that always surprises me is prose issues but when reading the article I immediately understood what you meant. So I've been through and virtually made all of the changes you've suggested. The only thing I left was the promotion section because in comparison to 4 Minutes (an FA) by Madonna, the section is not that much longer than the one for Madonna's single. This is especially true considering that this is Cole's debut release and there level of promotion was extensive. It cannot be called Live Performances like the Madonna article because it was not always performed live. If you get chance it would be good if you could take a second look? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)