This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
As it stands, the article is in pretty good shape, what would be expected of a GA for a song such as this. Structurally, the article is well put-together. The lead appears sufficient. Most of the sources are reputable. (I'm on the fence about source number 5). The image is appropriately licensed. A sound clip may help enhance the article, although one is not required. The word "song's" in the second sentence of "Chart performance" is inappropriately apostrophized. Detailed suggestions will begin shortly. --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Responses
Singer's room was awarded best "Soul Music Site" by the 2010 Soul Train Awards and XXL magazine called it a reputable website. Its been used in other GAs so I assumed its ok. I can replace with something else if need be.
I considered a song sample but since the song isn't actually available to purchase, nor was it released as a free download technically speaking there isn't a away of legally obtaining a sample unless a radio recording would be permitted.
That's fine. No sound clips is needed. Thanks for the insight on Singer's Room. I looked it up and couldn't find anything notable right away. I can verify what you said though, so I'd definitely consider it notable.--
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Sources
Rap-Up is cited thrice, but it's formatted differently each time. Rap Up, Rap-Up.com, and rap-up.com. For consistency sake, make them all uniform. Plus, the publication is a magazine, so it needs italics.
Billboard.biz is cited thrice as well, but source 10 links to
Billboard (magazine) and
Prometheus Global Media. Source six is the first instance of this, so that should be linked to instead.
"Jive had failed to support Ciara creatively and to some extent financially on previous albums..." - "had" is redundant. There needs to be a comma after "albums". Does the Background section expand on how Ciara was creatively and financially set back because of the previous record deal? Right now, it seems a bit ambiguous. And how is something "to some extent" financially hampered? Would simply saying "creatively and financially" be best? And is the dangling particle necessary? It seems unnecessary to rehash that by saying, "...contributing the poor commercial performance of both records."
corrected the introduction stuff. Looking at the information, we know that Ciara had to pay $100,000 for the last music video from Basic Instinct, I could include this information if required. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
"Ciara's new deal with Epic Records reunites..." - should be written in way that's timeless, so that it won't require editing in the future. Perhaps simply omitting the word "new" will suffice.
"Sweat' received a mixed reception from music critics." - awkward wording. Should be: "Sweat received mixed reviews from music critics." or something similar. "Music critics" could be linked to
Music journalism. That's common for song articles.
There appears to be a comma splice after the word "banger". Replace it with a period, leaving "Likening" as the introductory clause of the proceeding sentence.
Another comma splice. "...radio stations on June 18, 2012, however its planned..." should be "...radio stations on June, 18, 2012; however, its planned..."
"wasn't interested in first week sales or performance". is enclosed with quotation marks as if it was a direct quote, but the source does not support that. This phrase is never used in the text, although I do see how the original editor adapted it. Either a direct quote should be added, or the marks should be removed.
Again "commercially viable" is not a direct quote appearing in the Rap-Up source that follows. I think it needs to be cited or removed. Otherwise, it's potentially defamatory
original research.
" "Sweat" is a throwback to Ciara's roots, drawing comparison to and inspiration from the singer's previous singles "Goodies" (2004) and "Like a Boy" (2006)" is not supported by the Rapfix source. No instance of "throwback" or "roots" are mentioned. Goodies is not mentioned, although a slight pun on the word "goodie" seems to infer that. Like a Boy is mentioned, though. Revise the sentence so that it mentions the similarities between "Sweat" and "Like a Boy".
Not done. Only "Goodies" was removed. The other errors were not corrected. The sentence makes no sense now and is worse than before. --
Thevampireashlee (
talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012
"Sweat' made its chart debut on June 23, 2012 on , where it debuted straight at number one." is far too wordy, reusing the same words. Try trimming it down. Suggestion: "On June 23, 2012, "Sweat" debuted at number one on the US Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart."
2012 singles and Epic Records singles? Should these be changed to "promotional singles" or simply "songs"?
Hair (Lady Gaga song), a GA promotional single, uses "songs" as opposed to singles.
Other than this, great job. After these last few changes are made, I'll promote this to good. Excellent work and thanks for being patient with me. :) --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
19:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
No relevant images available. Single cover is appropriately licensed, sourced, and rationalized for fair use.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
No images available.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Awaiting final changes.
Single infobox?
This needs to be address before the review continues, I think, to avoid further edit warring. Is the song a song or a single? The text of the article calls this a "promotional single". Taking
Hair (Lady Gaga song) as an example of another good article with the same dilemma, it seems that the blue coloration is appropriate for promotional singles. I suppose the distinction between a promo single and a regular single is necessary. Thoughts? --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I explained to the user who changed it to song. Its a tetchy one as a previous Ciara release "
Like a Surgeon" was deemed a single and that was only sent to radio. However Billboard ran an article about that song calling it a single. In the chart listings "Sweat" is clearly a promotional single. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Gerrick Kennedy's opinion on why Basic Instinct failed commercially is not needed. Ciara, herself, said that there was one pushback so "multiple pushbacks" is not true. Also, while there were leaks during this time, there were very few, all of which which didn't get very much attention. The way it is written in the article doesn't make sense. The sentence before it says Ciara wasn't interested in first week sales or performance [before the album came out] & the next sentence gives someone's opinion on why it failed. They don't go together.
One more thing. Years are not needed after album titles. There are multiple good articles [Love Sex Magic for example] that doesn't include the years. If someone wants to know the year an album was released, they could just click on the article. Also, just because it's like that on good articles you see, doesn't mean it has to be on all of them. —
MPQzy (
talk)
22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
The inclusion of Gerrick Kennedy is not for his opinion but because its a
reliable source to acknowledge that leaks and pushbacks took place. There were obviously enough high profile leaks for one of America's biggest music critics (the LA Times is renouned for its reviews) to comment on and for Ciara to give an interview with. The sentence prior reads that Ciara wasn't interested in her first week sales, while the Kennedy sentence explains why Basic Instinct underperformed. Not only does it make sense but its completely justified in the context its written. I.e. talking about expectations (Ciara before the album was released) and then talking about reality after the album's release (Kennedy anaylsing the performance of the album). Also the claim "Ciara said there was one pushback herself" is sourced/credited where?
As for the use of dates, these provide a lot of context when the albums were released several years apart it provides useful information.
other stuff isnt always the best argument for the removal of such thing. When the article was written effort was put in and resulted in dates being included after the first occurance of the album title. It physically doesn't make logical sense to spend the time and effort removing them when they do no harm and actually provide useful information. They're not there because someone might want to know the date of an album release, they were put in place because they help understand the context when your talking about artist works spanning someone's career. If you can provide an actual reason beyond "they don't exist at '
Love Sex Magic' article" for their removal I'll actually go and remove them myself. Same for the Ciara multiple vs single pushbacks thing. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
As it stands, the article is in pretty good shape, what would be expected of a GA for a song such as this. Structurally, the article is well put-together. The lead appears sufficient. Most of the sources are reputable. (I'm on the fence about source number 5). The image is appropriately licensed. A sound clip may help enhance the article, although one is not required. The word "song's" in the second sentence of "Chart performance" is inappropriately apostrophized. Detailed suggestions will begin shortly. --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Responses
Singer's room was awarded best "Soul Music Site" by the 2010 Soul Train Awards and XXL magazine called it a reputable website. Its been used in other GAs so I assumed its ok. I can replace with something else if need be.
I considered a song sample but since the song isn't actually available to purchase, nor was it released as a free download technically speaking there isn't a away of legally obtaining a sample unless a radio recording would be permitted.
That's fine. No sound clips is needed. Thanks for the insight on Singer's Room. I looked it up and couldn't find anything notable right away. I can verify what you said though, so I'd definitely consider it notable.--
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Sources
Rap-Up is cited thrice, but it's formatted differently each time. Rap Up, Rap-Up.com, and rap-up.com. For consistency sake, make them all uniform. Plus, the publication is a magazine, so it needs italics.
Billboard.biz is cited thrice as well, but source 10 links to
Billboard (magazine) and
Prometheus Global Media. Source six is the first instance of this, so that should be linked to instead.
"Jive had failed to support Ciara creatively and to some extent financially on previous albums..." - "had" is redundant. There needs to be a comma after "albums". Does the Background section expand on how Ciara was creatively and financially set back because of the previous record deal? Right now, it seems a bit ambiguous. And how is something "to some extent" financially hampered? Would simply saying "creatively and financially" be best? And is the dangling particle necessary? It seems unnecessary to rehash that by saying, "...contributing the poor commercial performance of both records."
corrected the introduction stuff. Looking at the information, we know that Ciara had to pay $100,000 for the last music video from Basic Instinct, I could include this information if required. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
"Ciara's new deal with Epic Records reunites..." - should be written in way that's timeless, so that it won't require editing in the future. Perhaps simply omitting the word "new" will suffice.
"Sweat' received a mixed reception from music critics." - awkward wording. Should be: "Sweat received mixed reviews from music critics." or something similar. "Music critics" could be linked to
Music journalism. That's common for song articles.
There appears to be a comma splice after the word "banger". Replace it with a period, leaving "Likening" as the introductory clause of the proceeding sentence.
Another comma splice. "...radio stations on June 18, 2012, however its planned..." should be "...radio stations on June, 18, 2012; however, its planned..."
"wasn't interested in first week sales or performance". is enclosed with quotation marks as if it was a direct quote, but the source does not support that. This phrase is never used in the text, although I do see how the original editor adapted it. Either a direct quote should be added, or the marks should be removed.
Again "commercially viable" is not a direct quote appearing in the Rap-Up source that follows. I think it needs to be cited or removed. Otherwise, it's potentially defamatory
original research.
" "Sweat" is a throwback to Ciara's roots, drawing comparison to and inspiration from the singer's previous singles "Goodies" (2004) and "Like a Boy" (2006)" is not supported by the Rapfix source. No instance of "throwback" or "roots" are mentioned. Goodies is not mentioned, although a slight pun on the word "goodie" seems to infer that. Like a Boy is mentioned, though. Revise the sentence so that it mentions the similarities between "Sweat" and "Like a Boy".
Not done. Only "Goodies" was removed. The other errors were not corrected. The sentence makes no sense now and is worse than before. --
Thevampireashlee (
talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012
"Sweat' made its chart debut on June 23, 2012 on , where it debuted straight at number one." is far too wordy, reusing the same words. Try trimming it down. Suggestion: "On June 23, 2012, "Sweat" debuted at number one on the US Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart."
2012 singles and Epic Records singles? Should these be changed to "promotional singles" or simply "songs"?
Hair (Lady Gaga song), a GA promotional single, uses "songs" as opposed to singles.
Other than this, great job. After these last few changes are made, I'll promote this to good. Excellent work and thanks for being patient with me. :) --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
19:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
No relevant images available. Single cover is appropriately licensed, sourced, and rationalized for fair use.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
No images available.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Awaiting final changes.
Single infobox?
This needs to be address before the review continues, I think, to avoid further edit warring. Is the song a song or a single? The text of the article calls this a "promotional single". Taking
Hair (Lady Gaga song) as an example of another good article with the same dilemma, it seems that the blue coloration is appropriate for promotional singles. I suppose the distinction between a promo single and a regular single is necessary. Thoughts? --
Thevampireashlee (
talk)
18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I explained to the user who changed it to song. Its a tetchy one as a previous Ciara release "
Like a Surgeon" was deemed a single and that was only sent to radio. However Billboard ran an article about that song calling it a single. In the chart listings "Sweat" is clearly a promotional single. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Gerrick Kennedy's opinion on why Basic Instinct failed commercially is not needed. Ciara, herself, said that there was one pushback so "multiple pushbacks" is not true. Also, while there were leaks during this time, there were very few, all of which which didn't get very much attention. The way it is written in the article doesn't make sense. The sentence before it says Ciara wasn't interested in first week sales or performance [before the album came out] & the next sentence gives someone's opinion on why it failed. They don't go together.
One more thing. Years are not needed after album titles. There are multiple good articles [Love Sex Magic for example] that doesn't include the years. If someone wants to know the year an album was released, they could just click on the article. Also, just because it's like that on good articles you see, doesn't mean it has to be on all of them. —
MPQzy (
talk)
22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply
The inclusion of Gerrick Kennedy is not for his opinion but because its a
reliable source to acknowledge that leaks and pushbacks took place. There were obviously enough high profile leaks for one of America's biggest music critics (the LA Times is renouned for its reviews) to comment on and for Ciara to give an interview with. The sentence prior reads that Ciara wasn't interested in her first week sales, while the Kennedy sentence explains why Basic Instinct underperformed. Not only does it make sense but its completely justified in the context its written. I.e. talking about expectations (Ciara before the album was released) and then talking about reality after the album's release (Kennedy anaylsing the performance of the album). Also the claim "Ciara said there was one pushback herself" is sourced/credited where?
As for the use of dates, these provide a lot of context when the albums were released several years apart it provides useful information.
other stuff isnt always the best argument for the removal of such thing. When the article was written effort was put in and resulted in dates being included after the first occurance of the album title. It physically doesn't make logical sense to spend the time and effort removing them when they do no harm and actually provide useful information. They're not there because someone might want to know the date of an album release, they were put in place because they help understand the context when your talking about artist works spanning someone's career. If you can provide an actual reason beyond "they don't exist at '
Love Sex Magic' article" for their removal I'll actually go and remove them myself. Same for the Ciara multiple vs single pushbacks thing. —
Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)reply