Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: List/Keep as GA per consensus below. One objection was raised, but I have commented on this below. Geometry guy 20:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reviewed and passed this article, however, another editor is now challenging my decision to list it, so I'd appreciate outside opinion. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support listing: The article is comprehensively referenced, images appear to be correctly licensed, reception is covered, including some not particularly positive, would have liked more detail on production, but that may not be available; and I see that GaGa wrote, produced, played on and performed the track, so there may not be more to say on this. My only (minor) criticism would be that the article (like the video perhaps!) might be too long. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the discussion about why not to list it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As being the nominator, I'm not sure whether I am allowed to say anything, hence just wanted to say that the challenger of the listing, has previously made dubious and ridiculous claims that in order to pass the article, one should contact the artist's management and get their consensus. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There are a few minor issues, the inaccurate use of Britian in the lead. An unreferenced Credits section. I find the tone good. There are quite a few quotes but I think they are in balance, it certainly is a valid point to consider them but on the whole I think the objections to GA based on that is overstated. I lean towards support listing especially if the rather trivial correction of Britian and the credits refferences are resolved. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I corrected them. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'Britain' occurs three times in the lead but not in the body of the article. Britain is a normally taken to mean Great Britain which is not the same as UK, so the terms are not interchangeable. For song articles you want to use the term UK because The OCC is an official body for the UK charts and there is no charts for Britain. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Britain has been removed. I did not add it, someone else did. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support listing, with the caveat understanding that it's not difficult to find faults if one tries. Therefore my support is not saying that it is perfect or done in the best way, just that it is a decent article which is acceptable for GA. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This article is unencyclopedic. Many rules for writing are to encourage better writing. The argument for Good Article turn those purposes on their head: Maintaining that anything that follows the rules must be good writing. That does not follow at all. I would like the editors involved to find some article in the "Encyclopedia Britannica" that is similar to what has been done here. Piano non troppo (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Much of what you say here is correct. The problem is a 'Good article' doesn't have to be that good. It just has to meet the criteria set out in WP:GACR. There are many GA articles that I would class as quite poor, but things are getting better and if you compare a GA today to three or four years ago, it's very much improved. As you seem to be a well intended editor can I suggest you spend some time over at WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFAR, there really is a requirement for high quality editors such as yourself to bring on the standards of the top articles. Those FA articles have much higher standards and so you'll both find your comments more welcomed and the results over time appear on the main page of Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This user is biased as usual, and has no clue as to what is required or not for a song article. I don't find his/her comments as useful, rather hillarious. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've only taken a quick look at the article; at first glance I see no glaring reasons to delist. That said, the article is dense with details and will benefit from pruning. Alternatively, consider spinning off certain sections as daughter articles. Majoreditor (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples where the coverage is more complete and which are more readable are Let_It_Be (song) and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction. These articles have details about the performance and recording of the songs themselves, which this article almost entirely lacks. To be noted in particular in those articles is lack of trivial concert detail, "atta-girl" relatively uninsightful critical reviews, and of remixes. Those articles are a readable length which leaves space for later covers. If the current article was retitled "Lady Gaga's Performances of Paparazzi" it would be more to the point, perhaps. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoring the fact that two most original researched articles are pointed by you, Im not sure what exactly do you want? You want to add unsourced background and recording information? Or you want me to make up some junk and add it? In previous discussions it has been pointed out to you that if information is not available, then Wikipedia cannot add it. And critical review of a song is the most important addition and reflection of it and any other aspect. If you cannot understand that, then please don't make silly comments like renaming the article to so and so. If you donot understand GA criterias, then no one here can help you. --Legolas (talk2me) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – this definitely meets all of the GA criteria. Piano non troppo, you seem to have a strong, rather odd, opposition for this to be a good article. Why? "Let It Be" and "Satisfaction" are much older songs by much more notable artists than Lady Gaga, so of course recording info will be easily available. I own the The Fame album on which this appears and the liner notes contain very little information on the recording process, and only what is included in there is included in this article. No other source that I know of has provided any more recording information. This article may not have as much as you like, but you can't make up facts. This article is not just about the song's writing and recording process itself, otherwise it would not meet the GA criterion that articles must be broad in coverage.

    Piano non troppo, in the most civil manner possible, I advise you stay away from the GA status of this article, be it reviews or reassessments. I'm of course not saying you have to, because you have the right to do whatever you wish here on Wikipedia that is within policy, but your constant additions of the same comments without further explanation (beating around the bush, you could say) is likely getting rather tiring on the editors of this article and those who have been monitoring your ongoing criticisms of this article. Don't be a dick. –Chase (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per User:Chasewc91. Aaroncrick TALK 10:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Given the supportive comments here, I think this can be closed soon, retaining GA status. The single oppose is based on comparisons with articles about very different songs, and with Encyclopedia Britannica. Comparisons with EB can often, in my experience, be unhelpful for several reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia, but "an encyclopedia [which] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Second, Wikipedia is not paper, and that dictates a different approach to detail and size issues. Third, although the input of expert editors is greatly valued, Wikipedia articles cannot rely upon the expertise of the editors (unlike EB): everything must be sourced, with no original research.
Because comparisons with other encyclopedias may not be valid, it is a matter for community consensus to determine what is or is not appropriate content for a Wikipedia music article. It is not appropriate for GA to take a position in that discussion, beyond ensuring that music articles meet the GA criteria. (Similarly, it is not appropriate for other projects to add to the GA criteria for music articles, beyond helping reviewers interpret the criteria based on consensus.)
Anyway, I checked out the article with a view to closing this GAR, but found a couple of minor problems. The prose is a bit choppy, with a few examples in the lead that don't meet 1a in my view.
  • "Initially, "LoveGame" had at first been planned to be released as the third single release in the United Kingdom, but it was decided that Paparazzi would be released instead because of the potentially controversial lyrics and music video of LoveGame." This repeats "initially" and "at first"; it also uses awkward passive tenses in both clauses ("had been planned" and "it was decided" - by whom?). I also wonder how much of this sentence is lead material anyway.
  • "It is a mid-tempo dance song whose lyrics show a stalker following somebody to grab attention and fame." The body of the article has "up-tempo", but I'm not sure what these terms mean. Also I wanted to change "show" to "describe", but I'm not sure this is accurate.
  • "The song was written by Gaga to portray her struggles for fame." I suggest either "struggle for fame" or "struggles with fame": the body of the article suggests the latter interpretation, or possibly even an expanded phrase such as "her struggles with her quest for fame". Or it could be completely rewritten :)
  • " 'Paparazzi' has been critically acclaimed for its fun-filled, club-friendly nature and is considered the most memorable and telling song from the album." This is hyperbole. The reviews in the article contain both positive and negative views. One review refers to it as the most memorable, and another as "telling", but the latter review is discussing how much the song tells about Lady Gaga's approach to her music career. Using "telling" in the unqualified narrative voice is unclear and not neutral.
  • "The accompanying music video shows Gaga as a doomed starlet hounded by photographers, and in the process almost killed by her boyfriend." This is a garden path (the process was almost killed by her boyfriend?). It could simply be reordered as "almost killed by her boyfriend in the process", but the reader may wonder "what process?".
  • "Gaga performed the song live at her first headlining The Fame Ball Tour, where it was the opening song; the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where she won Best Art Direction and Best Special Effects awards; and on Saturday Night Live in October 2009." In trying to be efficient this sentence does too much: The Fame Ball Tour was her first headlining tour, not her first "headlining The Fame Ball Tour". Also, I may be old fashioned, but semicolons are not used like that; they are used in one of two ways: to join two closely related sentences; or to separate items in a list after a colon. Personal preferences aside, this sentence needs reconsideration.
  • "On the second leg of the tour Gaga performed the song in a Wizard of Oz inspired dress alongside a giant fish creature." To avoid the awkward long noun phrase, and disambiguate the likely cultural reference, I suggest something like "On the second leg of the tour Gaga performed the song in a dress inspired by The Wizard of Oz, and alongside a giant fish-like creature".
I also found one (possibly) unsourced statement, which I've tagged, but I expect that can easily be fixed. Geometry guy 21:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this wonderful review Geometry guy. I corrected them. Please check. --Legolas (talk2me) 17:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree. Great comments by Geometry guy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked, and this looks better now. Geometry guy 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification of intention to close. Per my above comments, I believe this reassessment can be closed if no further objections are received in the next 48 hours. I am willing to do so if no one else closes it sooner. Geometry guy 21:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Paparazzi_(Lady_Gaga_song)/2&oldid=1141914400"