Wikipedia:Peer review/So Yesterday/archive1

So Yesterday

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 feel that this could become a Good Article with a little more modification. Thanks, Novice7 Talk 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've done a really good job. I've been meaning to expand this article for a long time. ~~I don't really have anything to say about it really. I've never peer reviewed before, I just wanted to say that. xD~~ ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition should be in two sections, same as live performances and music video. Not sure the in popular culture section is relevant. And that's really all I can see. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Novice7 Talk 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adabow comments

The music video screenshot does not really meet WP:NFCC, so it should be removed. I don't know anything about the songs, so there may be a more notable scene, but you do not need a screenshot
See if you can do a bit more research on the video to expand it
Discogs is not a reliable source, as it is user-created. Try to ind track listings on Amazon, Allmusic or iTunes

Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed discogs and music video screenshot. I could not find any good information on the music video. I'll try. Thanks... Novice7 Talk 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Comments:
"After signing with Buena Vista Records, Duff recorded songs like "I Can't Wait", "Why Not" and "What Dreams Are Made Of" which became hits on Radio Disney." unsourced, you cannot say they were hits, did they even chart?
Composition section is too short, it must be expanded if possible, if not the audio sample should be deleted.
"Upon its release, the song received mainly positive reviews from the critics"... That is incorrect, reading the section it received more so mixed reviews.
Music video subsections need to removed, unless they look like Bad_Romance#Music_video sections they are not be be sub headed, even We_R_Who_We_R#Music_video isnt long enough for subsections.
"It received airplay on MuchMusic in Canada." is unsourced. And not really notable.
Throughout the article there is a number of issues with relevance, what makes AOL so relavent in the Chart Performance section. Onlly real charts are needed, billboard and such.

These are some of the issues i have with the article. If i find more i will let you know. BTW for the most part nice work on the article. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've fixed those. About composition, what is Duff's statement on the song is added from the Background section? Would it fit? Novice7 Talk 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrowzRSA comments

The "United Kingdom" in "United Kingdom cover" should not be linked. CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Composition" section should be expanded. CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The music video section does not need subsections, since they are each too short. CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the "In pop culture" is really necessary. If you find it necessary, it should be in prose style, instead of a listing. CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a link to the YouTube video is necessary. CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Discogs isn't reliable, use allmusic. Lucky for you, they've documented 5 versions of the single ([1]). CrowzRSA 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crowz for your comments. Fixed almost everything. Just, music videos and composition sections. I need to find more sources. Novice7 Talk 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphosis should be linked. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She then decided she would "give [the song] 100 percent" I think this should be changed to She then decided she would give the song a "100 percent". CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She then decided she would "give [the song] 100 percent" and not comment negatively of it, and, as she put it, she "ended up loving it", stating, "It was such a fun song, and it means a lot. This should be split into two separate sentences. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that periods are inside of quotes (i.e. "work that she's done". → "work that she's done.") this is not the same for songs though (i.e. both "So Yesterday." and "So Yesterday". are fine) CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please insure that there should always be a reference directly after any quote. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song is also featured on all of Duff's greatest hits compilations including, Most Wanted (2005), 4ever (2006) and Best of Hilary Duff (2008). It is also featured on the popular music video game Band Hero as a bonus download.[4] This does not belong in the background section. Perhaps in the Release and reception section. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an interview with Instinct, in 2006, reword to In a 2006 interview with Instinct, CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tempo should be linked. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is inconsistency between the use of US and U.S. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a ref that verifies Chris Applebaum was the director. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insure that references go directly after punctuation. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much. CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I see. This should easily pass GAN if that's what you're wanting to do. Good luck! CrowzRSA 19:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I fixed 'em all. Novice7 Talk 11:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candyo32 comments

The second to last paragraph in the background talks of themes in the song (which is part of its Composition with the writing and music). So really that paragraph and the one that talks about musical influences and could be split into the composition. Candy o32 14:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the sections just as you said. I hope it is okay now. Novice7 Talk 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GreatOrangePumpkin comments

hello,

Release and reception: gave a neagtive review on the song's title writing, should be negative
Chart performance: The song peaked at number two ar what is ar?

That is all I have found. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Novice7 Talk 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chasewc91 comments

Wow, great work! Just woke up so I'm a little tired and may not be able to spot a lot (I may come back here later when I'm more awake/aware), but the only thing I can spot right now is in the lead: "The song was written by the record production team Lauren Christy, Scott Spock, Graham Edwards, and Charlie Midnight, and produced by The Matrix for Duff's second studio album, Metamorphosis (2003)." The Matrix is the record production team, while the writers are only part of it (except Charlie Midnight, I think). –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Novice7 Talk 17:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]