Talk:Clumsy (Britney Spears song)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 18:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'l be reviewing your GA nomination. This might take me a week. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Infobox[edit]
- It should have "158 Studios, Westlake Village, California; House of Blues Studio, Encino, California" for the recording places
- Not sure about the vocal producer in there. But if it is as the inlay notes present it, fine by me.
- Warren Felder → Warren "Oak" Felder and Oak Felder → Felder
Done
Lead[edit]
- "as an instant grat track for those who pre-ordered Glory". → . It provided as an instant grant track for those who pre-ordered Glory.
- Warren Felder and Oak Felder, seem like different persons on this part of the article. On the second time just say Felder. and for the first time call him "Warren "Oak" Felder"
Done
Background and release[edit]
- In an interview a month later, → In an interview, a month later, + interview with which magazine, radio, tv and who was the interviewer?
- Following this, → Not after the interview that's for sure, since the single was released in 2015 and the interview took place almost a year before.
- This resulted Spears → This resulted in Spears... or This had as a result Spears...
- Talay Riley, among the → Talay Riley, was among the
- grat → grant
Done
Composition[edit]
- While Spears, Riley, Felder, Zaire Koalo, Trevor Brown and Mischke provided crowd vocals on the track, it was recorded at 158 Studios, Westlake Village, California, and at House of Blues Studio, Encino, California → Spears, Riley, Felder, Zaire Koalo, Trevor Brown and Mischke provided crowd vocals on the track, which was recorded at 158 Studios, Westlake Village, California, and at House of Blues Studio, Encino, California
- "Throughout the track, Spears delivers vocals in her "nasal come-on tone" as noted by Rolling Stone's Jon Blistein" → add the reference here
- "The critics furthermore opined that the song "marks a rhythmic, almost swing-inspired turn for Spears." → if it is the "critics" I need at least 2/3 references.
Done
Critical reception[edit]
- Instead of "write" and "writing"... → use "stated", mentioned, penned...replace three/four of those.
- "The National's For Si Hawkins of confessed that "Clumsy" is "a return to quirky form," → "The National's Si Hawkins confessed that "Clumsy" is "a return to quirky form,", perhaps?
- The picture is completely unnecessary, it was only one reviewer that said so not almost every single of them. ""Clumsy" was generally acclaimed by music reviewers upon its release." → This has also nothing to do with the picture. Remove it.
Credits and personnel[edit]
- What are crowd vocals? Wiki link it.
Done
Charts[edit]
- with it opening → opening
Done
Release history[edit]
- Fine.
References[edit]
- Avoid shouting.
- Entertainment Weekly is linked twice, once will be enough.
- If "Extra" is italicized than "On Air with Ryan Seacrest" should be as well.
- You have work and publisher on Ref. 17 same goes for Ref. 24.
- Vanity Fair → Vanity Fair (magazine)
Done
External links[edit]
- Fine.
Overall GA review[edit]
- Do not make any changes until I say so.
- You can now start your changes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Nominating a song from an album which was only released 1 month ago was grounds for a quick-fail or withdrawal from the nominator after being informed that this is too early for nomination. This is because it could be a future single, and thus the content would change dramatically. Song articles should be given at least three or four months before being nominated. — Calvin999 10:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: it is not included in the quick fail criteria. However, I can see where you are coming from regarding the subject matter. I will wait a week to see what the nominator has to say regarding the concern you raised above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I said either/or. You can fail on your part, or he/she can withdraw on his/her part. It is far, far too soon to be nominating songs from an album that was only released 4 weeks ago. The album has only had one single release thus far, who knows what could be released next and how that could change the article if it is this one, for instance. Even for albums, five or six months after release is the earliest it should be nominated, because it can change with content so much within that time. No ones fault, of course. I'm not pointing fingers or blame. — Calvin999 15:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CaliforniaDreamsFan: All done and thank you very much for your review. Concerning the problem raised up by Calvin999, here's why I have to say: While you're right with the thing that it could be released as a single soon, I strongly believe the article should be listed as a GA on this status. Even if a stand-alone release would occur, this would only have impacts on few sections (maybe a little more reviews?, more about chart performance, music video and promotion). This isn't that much to add; take an example of "Misery (Gwen Stefani song)", which was promoted when it still was a promo single, but then developed as a single without carrying dramatical changes to the article itself. Also, I would be responsable for editing new content added by other users. However, thank you very much for expressing your opinion, and you and the reviewer have to decide now if this should be promoted or not. Best regards to both, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you think it should be listed. You nominated it. I should think it odd if you deliberately wanted it to fail instead. But what you think or want isn't necessarily what is right for Wikipedia. You don't have a crystal ball so you can't comment on if there could only end up being "little" to add about charting, music video, etc. Anything like that alters what the reviewer deems as being passable upon the original time of the review, and thus hasn't been reviewed. The point is that it is too early to nominate a song article from an album released merely four weeks ago. Please keep this in mind for the future. Being a promotional single doesn't necessarily invoke notability, either. You don't really have a responsibility to edit new content added, anyone can add helpful edits. I just think that this should have waited a few more months to give it and the album breathing space to settle as this is recentism. — Calvin999 17:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- My issue is that I can see both sides of the argument and on this one I can't sit on the fence. @Cartoon network freak: you can't use "Misery" as an example since the song had minor success on the charts, and since it was promoted to GA as a "promotional single" then it should be re-evaluated (not trying to diminish the value of the edits made by the main author), and you can't predict what could happen with "Clumsy". Calvin999 is right on this one, despite a article well written and with excellent prose. I will have to think about it for a while, by the way I just noticed there is another song from this album, also released as a promo single, to be nominated to GA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Calvin999 has the authority to withdraw a GA review or pressure that there are only two options for this article's future: fail or withdrawal. Yes, he can express his opinion on the matter, but the criteria does not state that the article has to "wait a few more months" before being nominated. If the article is well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable, what's the problem? Carbrera (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I don't believe I ever said I did or would have the authority. I'm not disputing that it may be "well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable," I'm stating that nominating a song this early from an album that has only been out 4 weeks is far, far too early. I know, I've been involved in this situation before where I was the nominator and I had a nomination removed for being too early. I've seen it happen with others too. — Calvin999 15:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe Calvin999 has the authority to withdraw a GA review or pressure that there are only two options for this article's future: fail or withdrawal. Yes, he can express his opinion on the matter, but the criteria does not state that the article has to "wait a few more months" before being nominated. If the article is well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral and stable, what's the problem? Carbrera (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- My issue is that I can see both sides of the argument and on this one I can't sit on the fence. @Cartoon network freak: you can't use "Misery" as an example since the song had minor success on the charts, and since it was promoted to GA as a "promotional single" then it should be re-evaluated (not trying to diminish the value of the edits made by the main author), and you can't predict what could happen with "Clumsy". Calvin999 is right on this one, despite a article well written and with excellent prose. I will have to think about it for a while, by the way I just noticed there is another song from this album, also released as a promo single, to be nominated to GA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that you think it should be listed. You nominated it. I should think it odd if you deliberately wanted it to fail instead. But what you think or want isn't necessarily what is right for Wikipedia. You don't have a crystal ball so you can't comment on if there could only end up being "little" to add about charting, music video, etc. Anything like that alters what the reviewer deems as being passable upon the original time of the review, and thus hasn't been reviewed. The point is that it is too early to nominate a song article from an album released merely four weeks ago. Please keep this in mind for the future. Being a promotional single doesn't necessarily invoke notability, either. You don't really have a responsibility to edit new content added, anyone can add helpful edits. I just think that this should have waited a few more months to give it and the album breathing space to settle as this is recentism. — Calvin999 17:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CaliforniaDreamsFan: All done and thank you very much for your review. Concerning the problem raised up by Calvin999, here's why I have to say: While you're right with the thing that it could be released as a single soon, I strongly believe the article should be listed as a GA on this status. Even if a stand-alone release would occur, this would only have impacts on few sections (maybe a little more reviews?, more about chart performance, music video and promotion). This isn't that much to add; take an example of "Misery (Gwen Stefani song)", which was promoted when it still was a promo single, but then developed as a single without carrying dramatical changes to the article itself. Also, I would be responsable for editing new content added by other users. However, thank you very much for expressing your opinion, and you and the reviewer have to decide now if this should be promoted or not. Best regards to both, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I said either/or. You can fail on your part, or he/she can withdraw on his/her part. It is far, far too soon to be nominating songs from an album that was only released 4 weeks ago. The album has only had one single release thus far, who knows what could be released next and how that could change the article if it is this one, for instance. Even for albums, five or six months after release is the earliest it should be nominated, because it can change with content so much within that time. No ones fault, of course. I'm not pointing fingers or blame. — Calvin999 15:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please also see: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Nominating song articles which have only been released a matter of weeks. — Calvin999 16:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
My sincere apologies for the delay; based on the discussion above, I have to fail this. Everything is aligned, just wait another couple of months. Kind regards. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)