Talk:Get On Your Boots/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. Check back soon for an update here. PL290 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold[edit]

The article meets GA criteria 1,3,4,5 and 6. It is well written and with one or two minor exceptions there are no problems with prose or style. The article is let down only by citation issues, of which there are quite a few. I am placing the review on hold to allow time for the following issues to be addressed:

The song was made available digitally on 23 January 2009. The physical format was released on 16 February - the cited web page doesn't mention the song's release dates (but another source, cited for the video premier, does incidentally predict different dates: "will be released as a digital download and on physical format on 13th February 2009").
The song has been remixed twice; by the Italian duo Crookers and by the French duo Justice - the cited web page doesn't confirm Crookers (except in a comment left by a site visitor, which is not a reliable source).
At one point in the song's history, it was called "Four-Letter Word" and at another, it was called "Sexy Boots" - the cited web page doesn't confirm "Sexy Boots".
Following the success of the previous two albums, which resembled U2's earlier work, No Line on the Horizon is more in keeping with the experimental phase explored in Achtung Baby and Zooropa - citation needed.
"Get on Your Boots" is described by Q magazine as "demented electro grunge employs a proto-rock n’roll riff, but propelled into the future, before taking a sudden hip-hop twist midway through." - citation needed.
Hot Press described the song as "[...] a thoroughly contemporary, intense electro grunge exercise, with Adam Clayton's powerful bass to the fore, which mixes hip hop influences with shades of the Rolling Stones, Queen, Bob Dylan and The Beatles." - the cited web page doesn't mention hip hop, Stones or Beatles.
In regard to the song's supposed "throwaway" lyrics - citation needed
Media reports in August 2008 originally referred to the song by the title "Sexy Boots", and later as "Get Your Boots On". - the cited web page doesn't confirm "Get Your Boots On".
The music video was directed by Alex Courtes, who previously co-directed the music videos for "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights" - the cited web page doesn't mention Alex Courtes. Neither do the "Vertigo" and "City of Blinding Lights" articles.
The video was shot in London, with U2.com noting "there may have been some marching girls involved. With their boots on." - the cited web page shows "SORRY, WE CAN'T FIND THE PAGE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR"
The Edge stated that the video is about letting women take over because "men have fucked things up so badly, politically, economically, and socially" - the cited web page doesn't give that quote.
The video was scheduled to premiere on the Irish Independent website on 30 January 2009, but this was later delayed. Universal Music issued a statement saying that the video had not been completed in time for its scheduled airing. - the cited web page does not mention the statement by Universal Music.
It also broke a string of 14 consecutive UK Top 5 singles for U2 - citation needed
On its second week, the single dropped to #20 on the UK Singles Chart, then #30 before leaving the chart; it remained in the UK Top 100 only for 5 weeks - citation needed

The remaining issues are minor questions of style or wording:

The article has numerous quotes containing song names, resulting in double quotes within double quotes. If possible this should be avoided per WP:MOSQUOTE#Quotation_marks, as the start of the inner quote appears on first sight to be the end of the outer. However, I realise there are differing conventions amongst WikiProjects so I will leave this for contributors to judge.
Jargon & words to avoid: The song cracked the Billboard Hot 100 Top 40... 39th single to crack the UK Top 20 (needs a more factual word which is widely understood, such as "enter")
The track was later included on the British compilation album Now That's What I Call Music! 72 respectively - last word appears rogue.
huge amounts of downloads - perhaps numbers, not amounts

To recap: the article reads well and is let down only by the citation issues. These do need to be resolved before the review can be completed. PL290 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn; I'm glad that it meets most of the criteria, but I didn't realize there were so many errors in the citations. I know I've read most (if not all) of the problematic statements in some sources for No Line on the Horizon when I added them here a while ago. I'm not sure how it all got so mis/replaced. I'll try to make as many of the corrections as I can so the article hopefully won't be on hold for too long. I do have a few quick questions though, if you're able to answer them.

There is a Crookers Remix, but it was only available as an iTunes exclusive bonus track on No Line on the Horizon pre-orders. Since the album is out, that track is no longer available. Should I cite the album tracklisting, noting that it was a pre-order bonus only, or remove the information?

It all comes down to WP:RS: do include Crookers if possible, as it's of interest to the article, but only if all statements you make are backed up by a reliable source. If that's not possible you'll need to remove it. PL290 (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the WikiProject Song standards, but the MOS section you linked to suggested that "quotations within quotations are enclosed within single quotes." I'm not sure if you are familiar with it or not, but would you suggest doing turing "Get on Your Boots" to 'Get on Your Boots' inside of a quotation?

See also the main page linked to from that guideline, WP:MOS#Punctuation, where this same information is repeated along with the information that "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as those for titles of songs". This implies, as you say, turning "Get on Your Boots" to 'Get on Your Boots' when inside a quotation. However, if this should conflict with a WikiProject convention being followed, I will not press the issue (but in that case please cite the convention for my own awareness). PL290 (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far! MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

PL290 still gets to make the final decision, but I'm not so sure the article meets the criteria.

Well-written/Neutral

The most obvious thing: why isn't the article titled Get On Your Boots? "Get On" certainly means "Put On", which is demonstrably phrasal (see third entry) and thus should be capitalized.
Note that since the lead functions as a summary of the article, everything mentioned in it must appear in the body of the article.
"The song went through an eventful progression" – 'Eventful' may be POV; either choose a different word or drop the intro altogether (the reader will conclude the song underwent many changes after reading the following sentences).
"at one point, the song's prominent guitar riff was dropped" – 'Prominent' may be POV; how about 'main'?
"Following the success of the previous two albums" – 'Success' is definitely POV
"Following ... the previous two albums, which resembled U2's earlier work, No Line on the Horizon is more in keeping with the experimental phase" – 'Following' doesn't match up with 'is'; how about starting with "In contrast to U2's previous two albums..."?
No need to employ full quotations and name the magazines from which they are taken when describing the song. Just state it factually and cite: "'Get On Your Boots' is a rock song in the vein of 'Vertigo',[Rolling Stone] propelled by a "proto rock 'n' roll riff"[Q] and Adam Clayton's "powerful bass".[Hot Press] A hip-hop influence also conspicuous.[Q][Hot Press]"
Similarly, in the next paragraph, there's no need to draw attention to The New York Times or Catherine Owens. That's covered by the citations.
"A bootlegged, early version of the song was partly released to YouTube" – It was either released or it wasn't. I think you mean "A portion of a bootlegged early version of the song leaked to YouTube..."
"The video was shot in London, with U2.com noting..." – The 'with + verb-ing' construction is frowned upon at FAC. How about "and U2.com noted..."
"Allmusic wasn't happy with the song also," – How about "Allmusic was not impressed with the song either:"? Also, Allmusic is not italicized.
"The song entered the Billboard Hot 100 Top 40 in its debut week..." – replace the wikilink with [[Billborad Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]
You should probably replace all "#" with "number". I'm not sure the MOS calls for it, but that's how it's done at most featured articles.
"...and the worst debut for a U2 single since 'If God Will Send His Angels'" – "worst" -> "lowest"
"...it remained in the UK Top 100 only for 5 weeks." – 'only' is POV
Inconsistencies: "Top 40", "Top 10", "top five"

Broad in its coverage

This is the biggest problem area; I just didn't learn much about the song from the "Recording" and "Composition" sections (which should probably be combined since the song evolved while it was being recorded). All that's there is a little bit about the lyrical influence, the fact that the guitar riff was dropped once, working song titles, and a few descriptions of the finished song.

Images

The rationale for fair use of the video still is that it "illustrate[s] the music video in the article to improve understanding". How does it improve our understanding of "Get On Your Boots"?

Zeagler (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is only proper that other editors should comment during a GA review. This is made clear by "

Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." shown on the article list at WP:GAN once the review is under way. I am sure that as well as my own review comments, contributors will wish to respond to any additional concerns noted by other editors. If not soundly based, a GA pass will be of small avail as the article may quickly be delisted by others. Before completing the review I will seek to judge the extent of satisfaction of any who have made additional review comments. PL290 (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and I'll do my best to address both of your concerns in the coming while. I'll ask some other contributors if they can help too, since I'm at work a great deal of the time. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As 3 weeks have now passed without a further response, during which time the article has seen only a handful of edits, we need to come to a decision about the review. To assist with focus, I am now setting an end date of 15 July (7 days from now) after which I will pass or fail the article. The end date is negotiable to a small extent if there is truly commitment but holiday dates etc. prevail, but other than that, it's not realistic to prolong the exercise and the article should be nominated again at a later date when ready. PL290 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need; I'll withdraw the nomination since I won't have enough time to work on it properly and bring it up to the proper status. Thanks to both of you for the excellent feedback and list of things that need to be improved before the article is ready for anotehr nomination. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the process was helpful, and I wish you success in a later review once sufficient time has elapsed for contributors to do the remaining work on the article. On a side note of more immediate practical effect, as far as I can see, the only way for a nominator to "withdraw" is for the reviewer to fail the article. Can you confirm that is what you want to happen. PL290 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since that's basically what's happening anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]