Talk:Girl Code (song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 01:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

I would put the alternative title as a footnote. I know this is not a song article, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is a good example of how this can be done. The current method is not technically wrong, but I find it takes up a significant amount of space.

Moved to footnote.

Would it be helpful to clarify that these are standalone singles (i.e. not in support of an album or any larger project)? It may already be clear from context, but I thought of this while reading the lead so I wanted to see your opinion.

I added "as a standalone single" to the lead description

I would clarify that de Lesseps' daughter has backing vocals on the song not guest vocals. I believe guest vocals and backing vocals are different things and at least to me, they have different connotations.

Clarified.

I have not seen The Real Housewives of New York City so apologies if this is obvious. In the lead, you mention a "disagreement". Is that just a nice way to say an argument?

Reworded "a disagreement" to "an argument"

I think if you are going to point out a specific critic as in this part, with one referring to it as a guilty pleasure song, I would name the publisher (E! Online) as I think it is rather unnecessarily vague right now.

Added publisher's name

Background and release[edit]

I'd. move up the information on "Money Can't Buy You Class" and "Chic C'est la Vie" to the start of this section. I think it would be better to clearly establish a timeline for this singles from the start rather than delaying it until later. The Several years prior part is particularly unclear as I am not sure what this is prior to exactly.

Moved and reworded accordingly

There are two instances of "According to" in the first paragraph so I would revise one of these instances to avoid being unnecessarily repetitive.

Removed one instance

I would revise this part "Girl Code" first premiered as a part of a live performance to something like de Lesseps premiered "Girl Code" as a live performance. It is unnecessary to say first since that is already covered by premiered and I would make it clear de Lesseps is the one doing this live performance.

Reworded

This is super nitpick-y, but I would either clarify that Sonja Morgan is her The Real Housewives of New York City co-star or link Real Housewives to the franchise article.

Provided a link to Real Housewives

I am uncertain about this part, The song's wider release, since prior to this, there was no indication that the song received a more limited release (and I would not count a live performance as a release).

Reworded this sentence

I would move the sentence about the song's alternate title to right after the sentence about its release since it seems rather random to have it after the one on the music video.

Rearranged information accordingly

Has there been further information on this music video? It seems that has not been released so I would be curious if there was any follow-up about this or if it was just swept under the rug completely.

I, myself, did not even know a music video was filmed for this song. I am afraid the Bravo article is the only mention of it that I could find

That is what I had thought. Thank you for the update. It should be fine as it currently stands. A music video could have been filmed (or planned to be filmed), but just never came out (or was filmed) for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics[edit]

In the image caption, I would add the year that the photo was taken to provide the reader with some context, especially since the photo was taken years before the song.

Added the year in parentheses

I think you should combine the two People sentences in the first paragraph to a single sentence about the song's girl power message. The quote reads too much like a positive review for this section, and I think combining these two sentences would make this part more concise.

Reworded accordingly; hopefully this is better

The second paragraph reads a little too melodramatic for a Wikipedia article (at least in my opinion). I'm referring to this part specifically, "Girl Code" refers to a moment in de Lesseps' life where she felt violated and betrayed. I would revise that part.

Reworded; hopefully this sounds better too

Again, I have never seen this show, but I do not think the second paragraph really makes the whole de Lesseps and Radizill incident clear. I am guessing de Lesseps was made that Radizill was dating her niece's ex-boyfriend? There is also mention of de Lesseps having issues with her cast members. Do we have any more information about that? I think it would be helpful to clarify this part further.

Reworded (along with above). Let me know if this needs further revisioning

In the last sentence, please attribute in the prose who is interpreting the song in this manner.

Added Vulture critic

Critical reception[edit]

Do we have a source for the mixed reviews part? I hate to be the one to bring this up as I know it is annoying, but this can be seen as verging on WP:SYNTH territory, especially since a lot of the reviews seems rather negative to me.

Removed. I think I was being overly kind since most of de Lesseps' positive reviews simultaneously call her songs vanity projects (which they are, honestly)

That is understandable. I think most of the articles that cover these kinds of songs have a similar relationship to them. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about the "interesting" part from the Hamick sentence. I do not think the tone is fully clear (as it could be used sarcastically or ironically) so it does not really mean much. I would remove it and focus on the guilty pleasure as that seems like a better take on the writer's opinion anyway.

Removed

For this part, although, she enjoyed its lyrics, danceability, and catchiness, I would say however instead as the current wording feels incomplete to me.

Replaced word

I do not think the "however" in this part, She, however, called the song nonsense, really makes sense, since Gennis does not seem to be that positive about the song. Just because she put this song as tenth on a list does not necessarily mean praise. It could just mean the other songs are worse.

Removed

I like that you include the years that the reviews were published in some of the sentences, but I would be more consistent with that. For instance, Hamick's review was also published in 2015. I would relook at how years are represented in the prose and be more consistent (without being repetitive).

I ended up removing the year from the review that was published in 2015 because I did not feel it was necessary (as that was when the song itself came out). Is this alright with you?

That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing[edit]

This section seems unnecessary to me as this song was only released in one format (at least so far). I would remove it.

Release history[edit]

This section also seems unnecessary to me as there is only one release date. I have received a note in the past about this, which told me that I should remove these kinds of sections if there is only on release and release date.

Final comments[edit]

I hope this review is helpful. I have only focused on the prose right now, but once everything is addressed, I will look through the citations. I'm somewhat concerned about WP:NSONGS, but there do appear to a decent amount of third-party citations that focus on the song so it should be fine. I would also imagine that these are the only sources about this song? While I look through the citations, I'll do a Google search to make sure, but I wanted to ask you first. I hope you are having a great beginning of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: Just wanted to check in on this since it has been a few days without any edits to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Aoba47, I have not checked Wikipedia in a few days. Do you mind if I have 1-2 more days to address your comments in this review? I would really appreciate it. Please let me know, thank you, Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Take as much time as you need. I will be more than happy to leave this open as long as you need. I sent the above message in case you do not see the review. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extended patience, again, during this review. I responded to your first four sections of comments with replies. As for your "Track listing" and "Release history" suggestions, would you mind if I kept them? While I understand that it may seem like overkill for unfortunate singles with only one distinctive release, I think it is overall a consistent manner to display release dates with their respective formats. Otherwise, I believe I responded to everything else. Please let me know on my request, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I made some minor edits to the article. Feel free to revert anything if you disagree with anything. I do not have a strong opinion about the "Track listing" and "Release history" sections. I received a note about them either in a GAN or a FAC (and I honestly cannot remember which so apologies for that) so I was mostly repeating it here. I understand your point about these parts though so I believe they should be fine as it stands. I will ✓ Pass this article. It was a fun read so thank you for the nomination and all the work you have put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]