Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/So Yesterday/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that this could become a Good Article with a little more modification. Thanks, Novice7 Talk 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've done a really good job. I've been meaning to expand this article for a long time. I don't really have anything to say about it really. I've never peer reviewed before, I just wanted to say that. xD ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background and composition should be in two sections, same as live performances and music video. Not sure the in popular culture section is relevant. And that's really all I can see. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Novice7 Talk 05:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adabow comments
  • The music video screenshot does not really meet WP:NFCC, so it should be removed. I don't know anything about the songs, so there may be a more notable scene, but you do not need a screenshot
  • See if you can do a bit more research on the video to expand it
  • Discogs is not a reliable source, as it is user-created. Try to ind track listings on Amazon, Allmusic or iTunes

Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - Comments:
  • "After signing with Buena Vista Records, Duff recorded songs like "I Can't Wait", "Why Not" and "What Dreams Are Made Of" which became hits on Radio Disney." unsourced, you cannot say they were hits, did they even chart?
  • Composition section is too short, it must be expanded if possible, if not the audio sample should be deleted.
  • "Upon its release, the song received mainly positive reviews from the critics"... That is incorrect, reading the section it received more so mixed reviews.
  • Music video subsections need to removed, unless they look like Bad_Romance#Music_video sections they are not be be sub headed, even We_R_Who_We_R#Music_video isnt long enough for subsections.
  • "It received airplay on MuchMusic in Canada." is unsourced. And not really notable.
  • Throughout the article there is a number of issues with relevance, what makes AOL so relavent in the Chart Performance section. Onlly real charts are needed, billboard and such.

These are some of the issues i have with the article. If i find more i will let you know. BTW for the most part nice work on the article. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CrowzRSA comments
Candyo32 comments
  • The second to last paragraph in the background talks of themes in the song (which is part of its Composition with the writing and music). So really that paragraph and the one that talks about musical influences and could be split into the composition. Candyo32 14:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GreatOrangePumpkin comments

hello,

  • Release and reception: gave a neagtive review on the song's title writing, should be negative
  • Chart performance: The song peaked at number two ar what is ar?

That is all I have found. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Novice7 Talk 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chasewc91 comments
  • Wow, great work! Just woke up so I'm a little tired and may not be able to spot a lot (I may come back here later when I'm more awake/aware), but the only thing I can spot right now is in the lead: "The song was written by the record production team Lauren Christy, Scott Spock, Graham Edwards, and Charlie Midnight, and produced by The Matrix for Duff's second studio album, Metamorphosis (2003)." The Matrix is the record production team, while the writers are only part of it (except Charlie Midnight, I think). –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]