Talk:Go Deep

Go Deep has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 6, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Janet Jackson Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Janet Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Janet Jackson and associated groups or individuals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Janet JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Janet JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Janet JacksonJanet Jackson articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

3:57

3 minutes and 57 seconds into the song, Janet sings an ad-lib that fans like me have been trying to decipher. I don't know if it deserves to be mentioned in the article, it's just a thought. - Jjmcspooh 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so have i Stopitplease92 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Go Deep. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725082533/http://m.ew.com/2001/05/07/ to http://m.ew.com/2001/05/07/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.miss-janet.com/index.phtml?go=velvet&sub=velvetbio&song=track5
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dotmusic.com/artists/JanetJackson/reviews/June1998/reviews11084.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chartstats.com/songinfo.php?id=26448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Go Deep/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2015, I have made a handful of reverts at this article, but I have not made any significant edits, so I am not disqualified as a reviewer. Review in progress... Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. 11JORN, there are some concerns I have about various parts of the article, so let's talk about them, and move forward in fixing them.
The non-free image File:Janet Jackson - Go Deep (video).png has been tagged by a bot for reduction in size.
The non-free audio listening example File:Janet Jackson - Go Deep (audio).ogg is just a bit too long at 29 seconds listed (maximum 28.2 seconds for a song of 282 seconds length), and it has a stray little portion of audio at the end, perhaps a holdover from another song. The length problem will be fixed if the stray stuff is removed in an audio editor.
I can't find the song's "funk elements" described in the sources. The reader probably wants to know what elements they are, and we don't say anything about it. Larry Flick writes for Billboard that "Teddy Riley also adds a bit of old-school funk zest to his revision of the song...", but this isn't true for the main album mix and the other remixes, and it isn't specific about what parts are the funk parts. Jeff Hall of the Courier-Post commented about the song's "lean funk backing" but was he talking about the instruments of the backing tracks, or Janet's backing vocals? And he's an outlier, because nobody else talks about funk elements in the main album mix of the song. It seems to me like too much emphasis on funk. Add:... notice that Richard Harrington of WaPo thinks the song "seems a little stiff" compared to "Free Xone" which he says hits the "funkisphere" and is a "funkified Bacchanalia". He says the hidden track "Can't Be Stopped" is funky. If Harrington thought "Go Deep" had funk elements, he would have said something.
Archived URLs are not at all useful for newspapers.com, which is already an archive. You should remove the following archive URLs and associated archive-date parameters because they are not helpful to the reader:
There are lots of little English composition problems, a few blatant but most are just clunky word selection or poor grammar. At Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions, it says I may go in and fix small problems myself, so I intend to do so. Examples are:
- The text says "It is composed in the key of G-flat major..." but we cannot know that for sure, as it is trivially easy to change the key at the convenience of the vocalist. Instead, we should say that the sheet music is published in the key of G-flat major.
- The same lyric example is presented in the audio listening example and the article body text: "We go deep and we don't get no sleep / Cause we be up all night until the early light". It's redundant.
- Also redundant is the intro wording "expressing her desire to meet a man in a club and have sex with him" and the article body wording "expresses her desire to meet a man in a club and have sex with him". Perhaps for the second case you can quote Jonathan Bernstein saying "her desire to cruise a club, snag a stud, drag him home and do him".
Ayanna Dozier writes that 34 remixes were made for this song, with 12 of them by Masters at Work (Vega and Gonzalez). I think the reader would want to know these quantities. She says that this large number allowed more remix artists to enjoy the exposure of working with Janet.
Janet's husband René Elizondo Jr is identified by Richard Harrington as contributing lyrics to the album. Since he's listed as a songwriter for this song, we can assume he helped with the lyrics only. Let's tell this stuff to the reader.
Album liner notes list a third recording studio involved: Flyte Tyme of Edina, Minnesota, where the song was mixed. Flyte Tyme was the headquarters of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis.

More review to come. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Manila and the Philippines is not about the song... removing as off-topic.
I'm adding Flyte Tyme as a studio, and Elizondo as secret husband on lyrics. I'm removing "lyrically" where it was redundant. I'm removing too many instances of "also". Other copyediting for concision and grammar. The phrase "pulsing erotic groover" uses the made-up word "groover" as a noun, not an adjective, and it was not from Billboard. The concept of cameo appearance in film does not include early roles by relatively unknown actors who later became famous.
I'm removing funk as a genre element, because the great majority of reviews don't mention it. I'm leaving it in quotes wherever it appears.
I'm removing all those archived newspaper.com URLs, and the ones for Google Books that don't work for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was horrified to see some copyright violation in the music video description, with much of the text taken straight from the Dozier book, or otherwise too-closely paraphrased from the same book. I reworked the music video description because of that huge problem. I also added a bit about the Smashing Pumpkins song "1979" also having Snorricam shots by the same directors. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bot fixed the size of the too-large non-free image. I uploaded a new version of the audio listening example and it doesn't have the stray sound. The article is getting close to GA. I'll spend some more time checking it out tomorrow. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We got there, despite the serious copyright violation problem. Thanks for your nomination. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! Alex ^{reach me!} 19:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]