Talk:E.T. (song)/GA1

GA Review 1[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Status: In a few days.[reply]

Non-reviewer comment - Nice amount of references, but almost no text. This article is not broad and has a small amount of readable prose. The lead in itself is appalling. The article needs a big breast implant and lift if you know what I mean.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.o My first impression as well. But I will have to take a closer look soon at what needs to be done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment I agree, for song which has a lot of information and was very successful, it's actually very short. I suggest a quick-fail and ask the nominator to request a Peer Review or ask someone at the WP:GOCE to help with sorting and expanding the prose, because this will be a very long GAN review, which it shouldn't be, that's what a Peer Review is for. GAN reviews are mean't to be for highlighting general mistakes, not writing and expanding entire sections. References are a mess as well. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RGA#First things to look for, small content is not a reason to quick fail. I am still going to put up a review listing issues that need to be addressed for a renomination. I'll have that done tonight (EST). As for Peer reviews, even that's for nitpicking tips to bring up articles to criteria standards. Before anything, this article may need extensive work. This review is not closed yet. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

If you read the comments above, then it is clear to you that I am failing this article for good article status. The prose has bad quality in its current state and does not comply with two of the five manual of style guidelines. The music video section is lacking in information.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Probably where this article fails the most. Poor grammar and conventions, and the references are very sloppy. The page is scattered with cite overkill. For explicit comments, see below.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Very poor compliance with MoS lead and layout. Lead does not summarize the whole article properly. The article is long enough for the lead to have a brief summary of the video and critical reception , which it does not. (Currently, there is just one sentence about the music video.) Music video section is very cluttured and messy. If the section is that short, there is no need for "Development", "Synopsis" and "Reception" subsections.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The sections need to be expanded more. the music video section is very short for such a famous video. The synopsis needs to be much more detailed and longer. There is not enough reception either. The live performances are just listing performances without getting into any detail. Please expand this article as much as possible before renominating.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Self explanatory. Renominate this article after extensive work as described in this review.

Criteria 1a and 2a/b/c satisfaction issues[edit]

Lead

Written by Perry, Dr. Luke, Max Martin, and Ammo, and produced by the last three... That doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Maybe Written and produced by Dr. Luke, Max Martin and Ammo, with Katy Perry also credited for songwriting, sounds better?
Over a "stomp-stomp-clap" beat similar to Queen's "We Will Rock You" (1977),... This is suggesting that the song is over the beat, not played over it.
that tells of "falling in love with a foreigner". Quotes must always have inline citation. Otherwise, paraphrase it into a more general phrase.

Background

played in the recording studio—it was originally intended At situations like that, you don't use em dash, you either use semicolons or replace it with the word "as".

Composition

An album track of three minutes and twenty-six seconds,[11] "E.T." is an electronic[10][12] pop[13] and hip hop[2] ballad,[12] with elements of teen pop.[13] All those references are very distracting. Please consider moving them to the end of the sentence and combine them into one footnote to avoid citation overkill. See the link to get instructions on how to do that.
It was written by Perry, Lukasz Gottwald, Max Martin, and Joshua Coleman, and produced by the last three, with Gottwald and Coleman credited as Dr. Luke and Ammo.[15 Wanna guess what's wrong?
...Barbadian singer Rihanna... → Bajan singer Rihanna
According to Perry, the song is about "falling in love with a foreigner".[19] State first name here.

Critical reception

...with a darker, deeper, and more mature tone.[14][18][24][25] Generally three references is the limit. Otherwise, its overkill.
This was praised by BBC Music's Al Fox who enjoyed the contrast... Comma after Fox.
Matthew Cole of Slant Magazine disliked the track's inscrutability Online magazines are not italicized unless they are printed as well. Slant isn't.
...gave a three-and-a-half star review out of five... → gave a three-and-a-half star rating out of five
Reviewing the remix, critics were divided over West's appearance. Considering this is the first time you refer to Kanye in the section, it's wise to give his complete name.

Commericial performance

...becoming her sixth number-one in the country... Number-one what? Single or song?
Following its single release featuring West... Once again, provide first name.
"E.T." topped the chart in its seventh week... during its seventh week...
It ended the six-week run of Lady Gaga's "Born This Way"... Six-week number-one run? Specify.
...the longest since Eminem featuring Rihanna's "Love the Way You Lie" in 2010. Bad flow. How about ...the longest since Eminem's and Rihanna's "Love the Way You Lie" in 2010. Unlink Rihanna. One time is enough as she is not notable enough in the context.
12,468 plays for the week dated August 13, 2011. [50] Remove space between sentence and ref.
a rare feat for female pop artists considering she was the third to ever do so.[51] That is definitely not neutral.
In other Billboard charts,... Remove this part of the sentence. Makes no sense.
Its highest sales week according to Nielsen SoundScan came in its fourth week You're missing some commas.
This is Perry's Fifth and West's second song to reach the 4 million range which... Obvious typo.
...for Perry is more than any other female artist in digital history and for West, is also more than any other male artist in digital history. Put commas after "Perry" and "history". Remove "also" becuase Katy Perry isn't male. -.-
and a top forty hit in Belgium (Flanders).[34][60][61][62] Overkill.
Elsewhere in Europe, the song charted in its solo version at number eighteen on the Slovak airplay chart, twenty on the Czech airplay chart, twenty-seven on the Dutch Top 40, and twenty-eight on the Greek airplay chart.[66][67][68][69] Overkill.

Live performances

Mention first name of Katy Perry and Kanye West in their respective references.
...including as a bonus song for her Walmart Soundcheck set. Where was the performance?
The song was released as a free track on Katy Perry Revenge 2, a game for the iOS application Tap Tap.[73] A lyrics video for the single was posted on Perry's website on March 16, 2011.[74] These are live performances? Ok...
This section is too brief and just lists the performances. No reviews, opinions, short synopsis, etc.
...who was previously unannounced.[76] Unannounced for what?

Music video

I don't get the Development section at all. It is not told in chronological order and it sounds like the teaser was released after the full video.
...directed by Canadian Floria Sigismondi... Canadian what? Her profession is being a Canadian?
Include some quotes with Katy Perry's satisfaction over the director.
The video begins with the song "Where in the World Can My Lover Be?" by Midge Williams & Her Jazz Jesters playing in the background. As that is trivial and likely to be challenged, it needs a source.
...Sputnik like... → ...Sputnik-like... Hyphen.
...played by Shaun Ross Briefly describe Ross in that sentence.
The video also alludes to a presumable future, as Katy finds a box containing a skeleton of a Pigeon (a species said to have gone extinct in 2030) and a pair of Vogue sunglasses, which she later wears.[88] Presumable? Please source that as WP:LIKELY applies here. I don't understand the extinct pigeon thing here. Explain. And exlpain what Vogue is.
music video for "Born This Way" You don't have to link the whole thing, just "Born This Way" will linked will suffice.
It has since gained over 100 million views on the popular video-sharing site, Youtube. Too many videos have reached this milestone for this fact to be notable. Remove. Not only that, YouTube has a capital T and the sentence has no source.
In June 2011 Fuse ranked the video at number 96 on the top 100 sexiest videos of all time.[95] Comma after 2011 and the name if the list should be in capitals (save for "of").
and fictional characters Lara Croft, Padmé Amidala, and Jadzia Dax.[83][90][93][94] From what work are these characters from? Plus, citation overkill!
a sequel to Avatar or a Katy Perry video game It is discouraged to link words in quotes but I guess MOS:QUOTE is not needed to comply in good articles.

Release history

Separate the radio dates from the release history to another table.

References

These are another disaster. Loads of inconsistency, bare URLs and wrong parameters.

First of all, you have some MTV cites with the publisher (MTV Networks) used, while others don't use it.
MTV News should not be in italics as it is primarily a television network, which are not italicized. A good idea is this:

publisher=[[MTV News]] ([[MTV Networks]])

Amazon.com/Amazon.de should not be italicized. You have that done for some citations.
MTV Networks or Viacom? Make up your mind.
For other language Amazon links, specify language with the "language=" aprameter.
Walmart.com should not be in italics. Just "Walmart" is good enough.
nrj.fr → NRJ. Be sure to use the language parameter.
Don't use full urls as publishers (http://www.idolator.com/). Use [[Idolator (website)|Idolator]].
Lots of bare URLs. Format with with the citation templates/.
For the international iTunes sites, if the language is not English, specify with the language parameter.
Lots of date format inconsistency, whether it is "yyyy-mm-dd" or "Month Day, Year", keep it that way for all of them.
What is L.A. Times' publisher? What about New York? Make sure all of them have publishers/agencies if possible.
"Augist"? Lol.
Remember to use {{cite news}} for all news sources, including MTV News, etc. Your using {{cite web}} for some and {{cite news}}} for others.
Ref [88]: What's the name of the site/company? You just gave the link and date.
The publisher for EW is Time Inc, the company is Prometheus Gold Media. Use the former consistently.
I bet I could list a few more, but you get the rough idea that the refs need work.

Conclusion[edit]

I think it is clear that this article needs serious clean-up and expansion. References are sloppy and inconsistent and the prose has many errors. Do not renominate right away. Work on the article some more and remember that these issues are not all that are keeping this page from GA. Total clean-up is required. As Nathan said, the article needs a "big breast implant and lift". (That is just so wrong...) Try these instructions:

Address following issues.
Do more research.
Expand the article.
Get some more copy-editing done.
Put up for peer review.
Address peer review comments.
Renominate.
After that, you either will pass, or may have to repeat all these steps.

Feel free to leave comments on this review. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.