Wikipedia:Peer review/Lips Are Movin/archive1

Lips Are Movin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC. Please leave your input for the article's improvement here.

Thanks, Marano ^fan 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

Just a few quick comments, otherwise most of the prose is in decent shape and I wouldn't see anything that might derail a GAN.

The lead could summarise the article slightly better, or more specifically the music video. What did critics think about the music video itself?
"Billboard wrote that a few hours after the premiere it rose to number four on their Twitter Trending 140 chart" - should Twitter really be mentioned here? Is it an official chart?
""Lips Are Movin" was co-written by Meghan Trainor and Kevin Kadish, and produced by the latter." - could read better as "Lips Are Movin" was co-written by Meghan Trainor and was produced by Kevin Kadish, if that is true
The image in the Production and release section needs to be enlarged a bit, per guidelines
"In its sixth week, the song registered a 21-8 climb and has since peaked at number five" - what does this mean?
" Elsewhere in Europe, "Lips Are Movin" has so far peaked within the top 20 in the Czech Republic" - this could be outdated soon, so this needs to be written in present tense, more specifically as on February 2015 etc. Also, is there any information on how the song performed in other European countries such as France, Spain etc?
I'm not too sure about this, but do you think the Formats and track listings should be there? It seems very short

That's all of the prose issues I spotted in my initial reading. Overall looks nice and solid though, so please let me know if you have any questions. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thank you. I believe that I have resolved the concerns given above. Can you go over the article again, this time in relevance to an FAC? MaRAno ^FAN 17:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a helpful addition to the lead, and I'm glad Winkelvi reverted. It's weaselish and quite trivial. Its addition to the lead is somewhat symptomatic of the article as a whole, which seems to have a hard time distinguishing the important from the trivial. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the most basic comments on this peer review and I admit that it didn't take me long to look over this, but Marano, seeing as this has been on Eric's talk page and now a GAR is open, I would strongly recommend trying to save this from being de-listed before any hopes of this reaching the FA criteria. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I think that we can now get on with PR. MaRAno ^FAN 07:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting Drmies to review the article. MaRAno ^FAN 09:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]