Talk:Cherish (Madonna song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have copy-edited as I have gone through. Please revert anything that you are not happy with or anything I have messed up. I am certainly outside of my usual reviewing areas with this one, so mistakes are very possible!

• This article looks pretty good and is very close to passing. My main concerns are with minor prose issues, some parts which are unclear and other fairly trivial things. However, there is a sourcing concern with one section of the text.

References and spot checks

• Spot checks of the online sources reveal no problems except one: this section is taken almost directly from the abstract of the article it is referenced to:

Article: "Cherish" is a song constructed fundamentally on titles and phrases from romantic pop hits of the past. The first verse is built on titles such as "Cupid" (Sam Cooke), "You Are My Destiny" (Paul Anka) and "I Can't Let Go" (The Hollies); later verses incorporate song titles like "Burning Love" (Elvis Presley) and "Two Hearts" (Bruce Springsteen). Other instances include The Association song reference and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Source: It's a song constructed fundamentally on titles and phrases from romantic pop hits of the past. The first verse is built on titles such as "Cupid" (Sam Cooke), "You Are My Destiny" (Paul Anka), "I Can't Let Go" (the Hollies); later verses take hunks such as "Burning Love" (Elvis Presley), "Two Hearts" (Bruce Springsteen), and "Romeo and Juliet" (either the Shakespeare original or the Reflections cover).

I have indeed corrected this. Please take a look. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the sentence structure may still be a little close (this area is a minefield, and though not my particular expertise, I think it is better safe than sorry), and so I've reordered the sentences slightly to alter the structure. For me, it is fine now. (This may still show up on things like copyvio searches but my view is that I cannot see another way of listing these songs and I believe it is fine.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The other spot-checks do not lead me to believe this problem is repeated throughout the article, but I would appreciate if you could check one or two of your sources yourself for close paraphrasing. If you could (briefly) quote the original text from your references for two or three of your cited facts, that would be great. I only ask as I cannot access the sources myself.
• I could not check every online source as some have to be paid for. I assume from the information which you have given that you have access to the full articles; if so, is a page number necessary for the citation?
  • My response is, when I open these links, since I have access they come in one-page only. I have no idea if the original article published had the content in 2-3 pages, or one page. Any suggestions on this? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's fine if it is given as one page.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The only other concern was that there is nothing in the references for "Vernallis" which is cited in the notes.
  • My mistake. I have added Carol Vernallis' Experiencing Music Video: Aesthetics and Cultural Context book in the references. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose issues

• ""Cherish" is a light-hearted track": Suggests editorial voice. Possible rephrase as "critics regard Cherish as …" or similar.
• "that features instrumentation from": I always imagined the phrasing would be "instrumentation includes" but I am asking as I don't know, not because I am necessarily right!
• "it is a simple love song": Again, "simple" implies editorial voice.
• "Lyrically it is a simple love song, discussing Madonna's devotion and that her lover, whom she would never leave, is by her side.": I've fiddled with this a bit, but something doesn't sound quite right. Devotion to what? Her lover?
  • Have corrected all of the above. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Comparisons to Juliet also ensued in Madonna's delivery of the lines and her "passionate" vocals.": I'm not quite sure how the delivery of a song can make critics compare a song to a character from a Shakespeare play.
  • I have clarified this. Basically what they mean is that the lyrics of the song echo the same sentiments given by Juliet in Shakespears' play. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fine. Tweaked a little as Juliet would not have lyrics. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the track on the other two albums does not seem to be included in the main body. It should either be included or referenced.
  • I have added this in the prose with reference. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• "as Madonna chirps the words": Chirps does not sound particularly encyclopaedic.
• "This is followed by the sound from drum machine as percussion and guitars accompany it." In this sentence, it is unclear what "it" is.
• "During the bridge": Link bridge?
• "changing semibreves near the end": While not an expert, I am vaguely musically literate and do not understand this at all.
  • Clarified all three above. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm still a little lost. The sentence reads "A bass guitar plays along, changing its notes near the end." The link is to what I would call a semibreve which is simply a mark of musical notation or an indication of the length of a note. I am not sure how a guitar can change its notes in this way as a guitar does not play "notes" and these notes cannot change. The only thing that would make sense to me here would be if the guitar changed key or alter the tempo in some way. Possibly I'm missing something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually seeing your points I also feel that probably O'Brien wasn't clear about that herself. Probably she misunderstood what Guy Pratt, the arranger was saying to her. I thought its best to remove it altogether. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Burt compared the song and Madonna's delivery of the lyrics with Shakespeare's Juliet, feeling that Madonna's persona demonstrated both autonomy and need." I suspect this may be the author rather than the article, but again, how can a song be compared to a character?
  • Explained this. Burt compared the lyrical theme, the meaning, the mood of the song with the romance, the love evoked by Juliet for Romeo in the play. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, but still a little lost. It now reads "Burt compared the song and Madonna's delivery of the lyrics with the dialogues spoken by Shakespeare's Juliet, feeling that Madonna's persona demonstrated both autonomy and need that Juliet had lacked." How can he compare something to something that is not there; this seems to say that the lyrics are like the dialogue because Madonna's character in the song demonstrates something that Juliet didn't have. This does not strike me as an especially good comparison. (However, the following sentence makes the comparison nicely) --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I re-checked again. Sorry to say, the autonomy part is my mistake. Burt actually compared the characters of Madonna the artist with Juliet the character, not the song. I have removed that altogether. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Lucy O'Brien, author of Madonna: Like an Icon, felt that the song was typical for Madonna's previous musical endeavors, and would have fit more comfortably in the "candycoated" True Blue album." I'm not too clear what this is trying to say. The song fits with her previous work? And should it be "typical of"?
  • Yes, yes. I have changed this too. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Possibly "Critical reception" goes into too much detail with too many reviewers' comments, but not a big deal and I have no objections to it as such.
  • I think its fine. I have rephrased some of them though. Remember, song's from that era hardly ever comes with much reviews. It was quite a changing era in terms of music. Not many of them even got proper reviewer insight. Thank god Madonna's album is an exception and got ample reviews. If I ever would wanna shot with this at FAC, I would actually need more. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fine with me; as I say, not a problem as such and happy to go with your reasoning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Madonna's twenty-first top ten single": Should this be numerical, ie. 21st?
• ""Cherish" features a black-and-white music video": Features is not really the right word here as the song does not feature a music video. However, I've no idea of the correct terminology.
• "The video was conceptualized by Ritts, who wanted to portray a different species altogether.": Really not sure about "species" here.
• "He narrowed on showing Merpeople": Also "narrowed".
  • Clarified both of these. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Fouz derived a relationship between music and image in the video for "Cherish", saying that it can exist in all degrees of concordance. He believed that the continuous connection established between the music video and the song itself contributed to an important aspect of music videos—that they encourage the viewer to watch them repeatedly." I don't understand this.
  • Explained in passive and in as much layman's terms as I could muster. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Visual arcs and its phrasing in the video were preceded by Ritts still photography known as "The Male Nude Bubble", which bore similarity to the concept of "Cherish". Many of the qualities of the balance in the photos seemed to him to have been extended in time and placed in relation to the song." Nor this.
  • Fouz is pretty surreal I feel. I have again completely re-written this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• "be it paying with the mermen": Should this be "playing"?

General

• The article seems very comprehensive and well sourced. It goes into sufficient depth.
• Images and other media are either PD or have an appropriate free use rationale.
• Mermen is a dab link. External links are fine.
• Not a GA issue, but if you were thinking of taking this article further, I think it would need a further copy-edit. The prose is good, but probably needs polishing if it were ever to go to FAC.

I will place the article on hold for the moment, but I there are no huge problems which would prevent this passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro for the detailed review. I will begin shortly responding to the comments. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sarastro, I have re-checked everything. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I did ask the nominator to provide the text from their sources to back up a couple of references, but they have not been able to do so at the present time. No matter, I am happy to pass given the sources available for review. I have still not been able to check any off-line sources, but as my other (limited) spot-checks were fine, I will pass this now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)