Talk:Tooh (song)

Tooh (song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 27, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that among the six costumes worn by Kareena Kapoor in the film Gori Tere Pyaar Mein, the one in the song "Tooh" was the most elaborate?

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

India: Music Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian music workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tooh (song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudz679 (talk · contribs) 13:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will undertake this review. C 679 13:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Tooh" (English: Buttocks) is the first single released from the 2013 Bollywood film Gori Tere Pyaar Mein, which stars Imran Khan and Kareena Kapoor, and was directed by Punit Malhotra." does the song star these people? I would imagine the first sentence should contain the performers and possibly writers of the song, not information about the film.

Yes, they both star in the song.

Soham, what C679 is saying presents a valid point so far as a song is concerned. The singers, composers and writers are more important for a song, compared to actors on whom the song is shot. Of course, there is a big difference between the usual music videos released in the western world and the film songs in India. We in India often tend to associate songs with the actors rather than the singers etc (not a general rule, but often). In this case, I think, it is (for the sake of a global audience) proper to say the names of the singers/composers first, in the beginning of the lead. At the end of lead, we have the info that the music video of the song features those two actors. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, rewrote lead.

"The song is set against the backdrop of a wedding in the film." Too focused on the film?

IMHO, no because there has to be a mention "where" the song is taking place. It cannot start suddenly.

The lead mentions that it's Kapoor's second song, but she doesn't appear to be the artist, so why is this important for the lead?

In essence its an item song with Kapoor being the item girl and in case of songs of this genre the item girl is the primary aspect. Removed from Lead and into release section.

is it mentioned in any source that it is an item song. I have not seen the film, so do not know exactly. But the setting appears to be a wedding and involves a lot of people including family members, unlike the usual "item songs" that are solely focused on main screen performer(s) and their sensual displays!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this one. Soham 12:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The song's lyrics include multiple instances of the word Tooh—Punjabi for "buttocks"—which became the subject of controversy regarding its use in India, where discrimination against women is commonplace.[6][7][8][5][9][10]" I understand why there are multiple sources for this, but why are there two references from the same source?

I believe you're talking about India Today ones. They are different articles, one primarily based on the topic at-large while the other specifically for the song.

Not done

The second paragraph is someone's unpublished opinion with a link to the YouTube version of the video. Looks like WP:OR to me.

Its a summary of the music video. Unlike the west, no one here summarizes the music video of a single. The music video has a plot and in accordance with WP:MOSFILM plot summaries don't require a source because the film is the source. The music video being a part of the film follows it.

The reception section needs referencing in the first para. The second contains some interesting material:

Mohar Basu's quote appears to contain an error, unless it is correct in Indian English, specifically "lyrics still manages". Add a sic template if this is indeed an error.

Correct in Indian English.

unfortunately! there is lack of precise definition/scope of Indian English. For an article aspiring to be ga, we cannot follow unknown set of rules. A sic template needs to be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Added. Soham 16:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Durham's quote seems to contain irrelevant information. How is it important to the reception that it was already in the charts?

The fact that it had mass appreciation resulting into it topping charts seems to be relevant in "reception" section and as the name of the section suggests it chronicles how the song was received by the audience.

Y Done removed.

"Despite criticism the song received audiences appreciation and secured high positions in music charts" again this may be Indian English but it makes no sense to me. Please check.

Checked Indian English.

to C679, what is the grammar error? Missing apostrophe? Singular versus plural?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it encyclopaedic to list each weekly fall in the chart position of this song? Surely the performance section should detail the top positions, and the subsequent drop in popularity does not need to be detailed.
"Plantebollywood" appears to be a typo, please correct and check the rest of the article.

Indeed a typo, Fixed

A current GA for a song, Sing Like Me, has a "Background and composition" section, where information about the writers, cd cover and release date are detailed. It seems that this type of section would be a good addition to this article.

Sadly covers are not released through Twitter here so there is no info about cd cover, though I can include an alt composition and background development, not a single source exists for them. Some do but they cannot be considered reliable sources, you know blogspots.

Where is the track listing for the CD version?

Y Done, added.

Where is the verification that it is sung in three languages (as stated in the infobox)? Why isn't this information in the article body? If it's a Hindi-language song why isn't the category added?

It will be obvious when the person listens to the song. Category was missed. Soham 13:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Got it wrong, removed.
Now when I tried to add the category, it did'n't exist! Probably because of the fact that a handful amount of hindi-songs have stand-alone articles. Soham 15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

information about the release dates noted in the infobox should be referenced and added to the Charts section.

Y Done but added to release section.

Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided and instead merged into longer sections.

Y Done, merged. Soham 17:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add an "External links" section with a link for the lyrics?

Added

To sum up, there are a number of things missing that I would expect, there is some original research in the article, some of the grammar is questionable, and parts of the text appear to be redundant. I will allow a week for these concerns to be addressed.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

C 679 18:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but the cover, ideally, should be no bigger than 300 by 300 px, and, as per WP:SAMPLE, the music sample should be no longer than 10% of the song. Picky, but this is at GAC! J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, for the nominator, this means maximum 26 seconds of the 4:20 length of the song. Thank you J Milburn. C 679 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the cover, the 300 pixel is a rule of thumb and 20 pixels is not big difference, as for the sample, I'll reduce it to 26 seconds. Thanks. Soham 14:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Reduced length. Soham 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the charts sections need further work. It is not obvious that the song is sung in three languages to people who don't know all three of the languages (i.e. most people in the world). Also "soundtrack single" is not a genre (infobox). If the director of the music video is the same as the director of the film, which I understand it is, although not explicitly, this is a point of interest and should be noted. There is a specific section for the criticism of lyrics but some of the material is repeated under "Reception". Logically the whole criticism of lyrics section should be a sub-section of "reception" and duplicated information should be removed. The point I made before about two references from the same source being used to demonstrate controversy has not been appropriately addressed yet. One last thing, I am watching this page, so please do not repeatedly alert me to your progress here, I can see for myself. Thanks, C 679 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mate please specify where the charts section lacks, or please provide a line that I should follow to improve it. I will rewrite the lead, so no questions regarding that. About India Today, its the most reliable a source [Indian mind you] can get. What is the problem with 2 sources being used from it. Please shed some light on that. Soham 17:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you an answer to the first part above. For your other query see WP:OVERCITE. Thanks, C 679 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will make changes to the lead, you can view the progress here, watch it. I have Fixed the duplication problem [I hope] in the reception section and merged the "Criticism of lyrics" with it. Soham 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-worked the lead and the charts section. Soham 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I have re-written the lead keeping the focus on the song instead of the film and also shortening the charts section as also merging it with the reception section. As for WP:CITEKILL, its an essay not a policy and the subject is controversy. Deducting a source will break WP:NPOV, its big enough claim therefore needs refs. Moreover I have added genre's and recording location in the infobox. Hope I have managed to the solve the issues. Soham 07:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Focus is now achieved, prose is a long way off. There's nothing to add that hasn't already been mentioned. C 679 08:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"prose is a long way off", where mind if I if ask? I have gone through the entire review and I haven't seen an instance where you have pointed out shortcomings in prose. Soham 12:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudz679 please point out the part where the prose lacks. It has undergone a C/e from WP:GOCE still I am willing to fix the parts. As for WP:MOS, it complies with all of them. Which part of mos do you think it does not comply with? Soham 08:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you the question above because WP:WIAGA states 1a to be "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" and I wrote it respecting copy-right laws, whenever I used quotes, I sourced them. Spelling, you found one typo, I corrected that and for grammar, I used {{sic}} but that portion is no longer there. So I would like you to address the issues which are there, I may not be able to find.

I have concerns about the accuracy, in light of the fact that the article has changed such a great deal since I started this review. It is not even clear which language the song is in; you stated it is obvious that it is in three languages, then removed some of them, and I am left not knowing what is true and what is not. Currently the infobox says Hindi and the categories say Punjabi and Hindi. Apparently the title is Punjabi. I have tried to find a Punjab-English online dictionary with an entry for "tooh" to verify this, but without success. Can you provide a reference to a dictionary? The grammar is not correct throughout the article, including as stated in my original review, failing criterion 1. Also the sentence "The song is Kapoor's second item number after the song "Fevicol Se" from the 2012 film Dabangg 2, which was released on the radio on 16 October, coinciding with her first wedding anniversary." is grammatically incorrect. The video commentary is OR, as mentioned. You cited MOSFILM, but that only allows film plots to be cited with references to primary sources only "to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". I do not have "specialist knowledge" and cannot verify the accuracy of the video plot. This contravenes criterion 2. The neutrality of the article has been addressed, having been previously too focussed on the music video. Another thing is the cd cover, it is clearly visible at the article but the nominator said that there is "no info". This is clearly untrue as a brief description may be written thanks to the image's presence, e.g. who is in the picture on the cover, etc. The article was placed on hold for seven days for improvements to be made, but instead of addressing the shortcomings of the article against the criteria, the nominator has decided to repeatedly ping me for further and further clarification. I would reiterate that the seven day hold period is for these shortcomings to be overcome, and the article will be failed if they are not. Thanks, C 679 10:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding of the infobox song is correct then in the field "language" the one in which the song has been sung entirely should be included. Erstwhile revision had three languages, but the song was not sung in 3 different languages. It has only one version with the most of the lyrics being in Hindi so hindi has been retained. When I removed the languages in the infobox I forgot to remove the category.

The grammar instance has been corrected.

Regarding the music video section. The YouTube link at the end of the paragraph should be enough for a "reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" to verify the accuracy of the section.

But I already stated that it is not possible. I cannot infer all of that by watching a video, as I am unfamiliar with the terminology. C 679 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now regarding CD cover - Yes indeed the CD Cover is present but if I dedicate a section to it, say under "release" then would'n't it qualify as WP:OR. If its not I would be glad to, otherwise I can provide a WP:ALT.

Added alt for the cover, which cannot be regarded as WP:OR.

If you can, I request you to extend the hold period because of the time-difficulties I faced with us living in different time zones. Soham 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the very last paragraph of the article, on the various positions reached by the song in different charts! is a mess. My suggestion would be to break the information to each chart. For example, say like, the song reached no 2 in chart A, no 9 in chart B, no 33 in chart C etc. Also, you mention at least three charts, but in the last sentence use "former" and "latter", which refers to two charts (which two?). This section is all messed up. Please clarify.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, the first chart is a collaboration between TOI and Radio Mirchi, they are not two separate charts, they are the one and same. Soham 05:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added note for clarification. Soham 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the song reached two and nine position in Times of India Radio Mirchi collaborative chart, but what position in BBC chart? Also, in the first chart (ToI/Radio Mirchi), it was number two and nine for 11 weeks?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reached No. 2 in the TOI&RM collaborative chart and No. 9 in the BBC one, these two are highest position secured by the single on each one of them. I have made changes to the charts part in order to prevent such confusion arising in the reader's mind. Soham 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. The prose is still giving me a headache, "playback recordists", "On release it became popular" (state the obvious), "and featured in several charts of popular Hindi songs" (what?) and that is just in the lead. I have already made my feelings known about the OR in the music video section. The next section has two sentences and yet still there is poor grammar. The paragraph about the chart positions has been re-done but is still poor. I don't know what else I can add. It seems the nominator is unable to address the concerns with the prose and specific sections, some of which were raised over a week ago. It remains a mystery to me if the song is in Hindi, Punjabi or English. Apparently the word "tooh" is a Punjabi word, which, although mentioned in newspaper articles, I was unable to find in any online dictionary. This has not been adequately addressed. More time has been requested due to time zone differences, however I feel the delay is not due to this, but due to the nominator not being capable of addressing these issues without a third party to assist. I would therefore suggest the best action is to deal with the issues in full, request a copy edit and then return to GAC when the article is crystal-clear. Despite over a week working on this review, I am still not 100% sure what is it really about. C 679 19:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track list[edit]

@Soham: Can you explain to me why the track list of whole film is needed here? How does the position of other songs besides this song in a CD matter? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to do that. Soham 14:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to discuss about the CD version not the digital single one. Soham 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song was released twice, once digitally as a single through iTunes India and other in CD version with the rest of the tracks. The track being released twice we have to mention both instances, not one. In case of CD version just mentioning the track no. won't suffice. Track is only justified when its relative, eg: This is one, this is two. That would make sense while "This is four" simply put will not make sense. There you go Dharma. Soham 15:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! So hows this.... "The song was digitally released on DDMMYY on iTunes and then again released in CD format, along with the whole sound track of the film on DDMMYY." I really don't understand why and how does it matter to say that the song is 4th in the CD or 7th. I have seen such numbering to matter for songs of Western albums. Maybe outside wiki the number matters to these western albums. But how does it matter to this filmy song? Who really cares for that number? And just to establish that number, we have to add list of all songs.

If at all you want to mention other songs of the film, mention other hit ones like "Chingam Chabake" in the prose. More pointers coming later on for addition to the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dharma! Thanks, I already have a draft for the song ready here. Soham 15:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note the GAR was just hell! The reviewer asked me to include the track listing for CD Version, I did and it broke my back while reading out those small piece of letters on the CD release notes and now you have provided an absolutely justified reason to omit. Damn, all those minutes wasted! But the GAR was a real learning curve for me though! Soham 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you blindly listen to reviewers? WP:FILMPLOT not only applies for film's plot section but it equally applies for TV show's plot section, book's story or song's video. It isn't explicitly written such because essay writers expect you be capable of that much brain function. The essence is that what description of the video you get by actually keeping your eyes open while the video is on doesn't need other secondary references. Commentary on it would require sec sources. If they aren't reasonably educated person they can't be WP:COMPETENT either to review articles of songs which they are puzzled at the end about. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The man got irritated when I left a message on his talk, imagine the condition of the review if I opposed to him. I steer clear of broils. He was not ready to listen, what can I do then? Articles are not created as GA quality ones, they are the result of combined effort of both the contributor and the reviewer, as they say in Bengali, "Joda hathe tali baje na" meaning it has to be give and take not a one-sided affair. After all were here to build to encyclopaedia together. At one point I thought it to be a FA review. His ending note that said and I quote "the nominator not being capable of addressing these issues without a third party to assist" was extremely disappointing and deterring. The review, only my second bit me like hell! There is no point in discussing it now and I don't want to engage in a dispute with him, will do no favours to my mental health which has taken a bashing in the last few weeks. I will list it for WP:GOCE again and lets see if its GA worthy then. Thanks for your support Dharma.

Note: C799 I have no hard feelings against you, just that I was disappointed with the review please don't take the above as a WP:PA as I am expressing my disappointment about your review [work] and not lambasting at you. We both have our POV's and I respect yours, please respect mine. Thanks. Soham 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]