Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 3. Broad in coverage without going into unnecessary detail. Fails. It does not address the main aspects of the topic. The article is comprised of critical reviews, aesthetic interpretations, sales figures, an aimless, sterile list of dozens of remixes, and painfully detailed literal descriptions of individual song performances. From a musician's point of view, the song is described in a only a couple sentences, "The song has a moderate electro-synth groove and it is composed in the key of C minor with a tempo of 116 beats per minute. The song is set in common time, and Gaga's vocal range spans from the high-note of G3 to the lower base of E♭5.[8] The song has the following chord progression, Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Db." There's nothing about the musical instruments, the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment. In short, it's a PR piece to promote Lady Gaga, herself. The article misses half the point about what makes the song and video distinctive. Piano non troppo ( talk) 11:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Since wikipedia cannot engage in original research, we can only relay information that is already available. If there are no WP:V source which describes "the musical instruments, the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment" then we cannot report on it (and I would like to point out individual songs rarely have that much information published until they become highly notably to the history of contemporary music). That, however, does not compromise the comprehensive criteria of a GA article. Critical reviews, chart progression, and sales figures are part of a song's comprehensive analysis when it is a single released for commercial profit. I would encourage the reviewer to read WP:SONGS and review Category:FA-Class_song_articles, such as Hollaback Girl, Fuck the Millennium, and Hey Jude on how wikipedia guidelines gauge song articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Although Piano non tropo is not an outside reviewer with respect to this article, the editor is as entitled as any other to review the article. Given the editor's reservations, which establish a content dispute that is current, this article does fail GA. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Legolas2186, at the start, when this began, I removed a single external link, which you characterized as "vandalism". [1] [2] You take offense at a minor edit and respond with personal attack. At this point, I suggest you either drop the recommendation of this article as GA, or follow mattisse's advice. Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: 3. Broad in coverage without going into unnecessary detail. Fails. It does not address the main aspects of the topic. The article is comprised of critical reviews, aesthetic interpretations, sales figures, an aimless, sterile list of dozens of remixes, and painfully detailed literal descriptions of individual song performances. From a musician's point of view, the song is described in a only a couple sentences, "The song has a moderate electro-synth groove and it is composed in the key of C minor with a tempo of 116 beats per minute. The song is set in common time, and Gaga's vocal range spans from the high-note of G3 to the lower base of E♭5.[8] The song has the following chord progression, Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Ab–Cm–Fm–Db–Db." There's nothing about the musical instruments, the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment. In short, it's a PR piece to promote Lady Gaga, herself. The article misses half the point about what makes the song and video distinctive. Piano non troppo ( talk) 11:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Since wikipedia cannot engage in original research, we can only relay information that is already available. If there are no WP:V source which describes "the musical instruments, the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment" then we cannot report on it (and I would like to point out individual songs rarely have that much information published until they become highly notably to the history of contemporary music). That, however, does not compromise the comprehensive criteria of a GA article. Critical reviews, chart progression, and sales figures are part of a song's comprehensive analysis when it is a single released for commercial profit. I would encourage the reviewer to read WP:SONGS and review Category:FA-Class_song_articles, such as Hollaback Girl, Fuck the Millennium, and Hey Jude on how wikipedia guidelines gauge song articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Although Piano non tropo is not an outside reviewer with respect to this article, the editor is as entitled as any other to review the article. Given the editor's reservations, which establish a content dispute that is current, this article does fail GA. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Legolas2186, at the start, when this began, I removed a single external link, which you characterized as "vandalism". [1] [2] You take offense at a minor edit and respond with personal attack. At this point, I suggest you either drop the recommendation of this article as GA, or follow mattisse's advice. Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)