Wikipedia:Peer review/Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to see how I can improve this article more. Maybe, I can nominate it for a FA later. Please leave your comments. Thanks, Novice7 | Talk 04:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Melicans
Overall it looks like a fairly nice and well-written article. A few comments I have:
- File:JessicaSimpson Irresistible.ogg - it is within the limit, but the fair use rationale needs to be tightened up considerably beyond the generic rationale; it needs to be specific to the article. How does it aid the reader's comprehension? What about it exactly relates to the article? See this for an example of a specific fair-use rationale.
- I added specific rationale. Can you please check it out, and tell me if its okay?
- It's a bit better, but could still use something more. Is there anyway that you can relate the sample to a theme or lyric in the song that is discussed in the article? Something akin to what is in here (sorry; should have probably linked that one from the start!). That would definitely tighten it up a lot more.
- I'll add more.
- As a forwarning, one user at FAC will probably oppose based on the cover art in the infobox. You can try tightening that one up if you like, but it probably won't matter much; cover art for albums, singles, books, films, etc. are generally seen as essential and allowed by the FAC delegates, so if there is an opposition based on that factor don't take it personally. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I've heard about that. I'll try to provide rationale for that too.
- It's a bit better, but could still use something more. Is there anyway that you can relate the sample to a theme or lyric in the song that is discussed in the article? Something akin to what is in here (sorry; should have probably linked that one from the start!). That would definitely tighten it up a lot more.
- I added specific rationale. Can you please check it out, and tell me if its okay?
- Consider converting the information in Track listings to {{tracklist}}.
- Not done. Isn't the template used mainly for album articles?
- In terms of prose I don't have much to offer; the one suggestion I can make is for you to vary the language a bit where possible. For example, "Siobhan Grogan of NME magazine reviewed the video stating that Simpson has no apprehension "about 'forgetting' most of her clothes for the video".[15] The video reached number two..." "Video" is repeated a bit too often.
- Removed and fixed.
- I always recommend manually archiving all of the links so that the issue of dead links is avoided in the future (handy if any links go down during an FAC, and so that you don't have to scramble if the article ever goes to FAR). WebCite is excellent, and can be implemented with the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= functions in any of the citation templates.
- I will archive the links, thank you.
- Archived and added few links. Will add others too.
- I will archive the links, thank you.
- Most of the references look good. Is ref 22 (longboardsurfer.com) a reliable source? I'd check with the people at WP:CHARTS on that one; alternatively, Kww will definitely know if you ask him.
- I've asked Kevin about its reliability.
- It is unreliable. Changed to Billboard source.
- I've asked Kevin about its reliability.
- References in a foreign language (which some of the chart ones are) should include the |language= parameter in the citation template. It isn't necessary for references in the English language, so it should probably be removed from references 43, 44, and 45. Since television shows are unchanging you don't need an accessdate for them; the airdate is sufficient.
- Removed. Thank you.
- Reference 40 might be a bit iffy at FAC; does FindArticles have permission to host articles?
- I had doubts too. But, as the source preceding it already verifies her performance, I removed the FindArticles source.
- Overlinking; an item only needs to be linked the first time it is mentioned; twice if it is mentioned in the lead or the infobox. I didn't see much of it in the prose, but in the references Jessica Simpson is linked multiple times, as are some newspapers. Only the first mention needs to be linked.
- Removed many redundant links.
I think that is about it from me. The article is well-written and nicely referenced. I honestly don't think it is far from FAC at all. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a line. Good luck! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Check MOS:IMAGES. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Removed an image that does not relate to the section. Novice7 | Talk 07:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)