Talk:Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/GA1/archive

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | 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)[reply]

This is so state in the politest way possible but I would request you to step down from editing the article as you were associated in an edit content disagreement and cannot be a reviewer for the article. Your above statements simply show that you are letting your biasness come in the way of your review. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concor, it does not seem appropriate for you to review this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, happened to stop by and notice the disagreement occurring here. I have not checked the history of the article, but Piano non troppo, if you indeed have been involved in a recent dispute, it would not be wise to continue with your review. Please let another editor who has little to no editing history at this page assess this so that bias is not an issue. Judging from my scanning of the page after reading the review, I would like to add that I think Piano's comment about this being a "PR piece to promote Lady Gaga" is extreme, untrue, and an exaggeration. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piano non troppo is vehemently being aggressive regarding this article and it totally shows from the comments on his talk page that he is reviewing the article with the intention of failing it. And whether the dispute was regarding the external links or not, he was involved in editing the aricle and he should not review it. As the nominater of the article I frankly refuse to accept a review by such a biased and aggressive editor who doesnot carry any good faith. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, Bookkeeperoftheoccult, Wikipedia isn't a forum to reward people for "best effort". There is incomplete information on an obscure ruler from the Dark Age? Two or three sentences? That doesn't mean the article about them merits GA because "it's the best we could do". It means the article is incomplete and flawed. Piano non troppo (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to own a copy of the album for which this song is on, so I can confirm that the instruments used are piano and synthesizer, both played by the artist. But otherwise, I agree. Most of that info is not available to the public as it's simply not notable. Chase wc ⁹¹ 20:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on where to find sources, and I see Chasewc91 has made a start. Also check the credits on the video. Very briefly, if it was the case that the information was not available, then it wouldn't mean it's ok to go to GA, it would mean there isn't sufficient information to go to GA. (Compare with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds which *does* have the information.) (Also note that song article has no external links.)

Protocol on my comments. I don't feel that some editors here are interested in a professional opinion (or apparently Lady Gaga's, etc.) Your "consensus" has produced an article that's unlikely to be completely read by more than a few readers. Since you are unwilling to improve in even the smallest matter, I decline to contribute further. Do as you please. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Piano but I have to say this, in regards to your comment that you don't feel that some editors here are interested in a professional opinion (or apparently Lady Gaga's, etc.) This is what consensus here feels that its absurd. Imagine, if I'm a notable celebrity and someone from wikipedia comes and asks an opinion about my BLP, would I happily say that "my article is really bad on wikipedia"? Never. Its called a conflict of interest which is "too err is human". Next, from the beginning you have been saying professional, professional, professional. That's where my objections lie. On what basis you are disregarding other's contributions as unprofessional and who are you to do so? This is what implied that you don't show good-faith against other's contributions. Have a faith in others and you will find what a wonderful place this community is. Goodbye. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You could contest the reviewer's opinion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]