Talk:Sweat (Ciara song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSweat (Ciara song) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Thevampireashlee (talk · contribs) 12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait to begin reviewing this article. I will start either today or tomorrow. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

As it stands, the article is in pretty good shape, what would be expected of a GA for a song such as this. Structurally, the article is well put-together. The lead appears sufficient. Most of the sources are reputable. (I'm on the fence about source number 5). The image is appropriately licensed. A sound clip may help enhance the article, although one is not required. The word "song's" in the second sentence of "Chart performance" is inappropriately apostrophized. Detailed suggestions will begin shortly. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
  • Singer's room was awarded best "Soul Music Site" by the 2010 Soul Train Awards and XXL magazine called it a reputable website. Its been used in other GAs so I assumed its ok. I can replace with something else if need be.
  • I considered a song sample but since the song isn't actually available to purchase, nor was it released as a free download technically speaking there isn't a away of legally obtaining a sample unless a radio recording would be permitted.
  • Correct apostrophe issue. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. No sound clips is needed. Thanks for the insight on Singer's Room. I looked it up and couldn't find anything notable right away. I can verify what you said though, so I'd definitely consider it notable.--Thevampireashlee (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Rap-Up is cited thrice, but it's formatted differently each time. Rap Up, Rap-Up.com, and rap-up.com. For consistency sake, make them all uniform. Plus, the publication is a magazine, so it needs italics.
Lead
  • "Jive had failed to support Ciara creatively and to some extent financially on previous albums..." - "had" is redundant. There needs to be a comma after "albums". Does the Background section expand on how Ciara was creatively and financially set back because of the previous record deal? Right now, it seems a bit ambiguous. And how is something "to some extent" financially hampered? Would simply saying "creatively and financially" be best? And is the dangling particle necessary? It seems unnecessary to rehash that by saying, "...contributing the poor commercial performance of both records."
  • corrected the introduction stuff. Looking at the information, we know that Ciara had to pay $100,000 for the last music video from Basic Instinct, I could include this information if required. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ciara's new deal with Epic Records reunites..." - should be written in way that's timeless, so that it won't require editing in the future. Perhaps simply omitting the word "new" will suffice.
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing comma between "album" and "Goodies" in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead single should be linked in the first line of the second paragraph and delinked in the last paragraph.
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sweat' received a mixed reception from music critics." - awkward wording. Should be: "Sweat received mixed reviews from music critics." or something similar. "Music critics" could be linked to Music journalism. That's common for song articles.
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "club banger" seems to be jargon. I would recommend replacing it with [[Electronic dance music|club music]].
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There appears to be a comma splice after the word "banger". Replace it with a period, leaving "Likening" as the introductory clause of the proceeding sentence.
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Another comma splice. "...radio stations on June 18, 2012, however its planned..." should be "...radio stations on June, 18, 2012; however, its planned..."
 Done corrected — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17
  • 37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Background and release
  • Comma after Basic Instinct (2010) in the first sentence.
  • "underperformed" is one word.
  • The colon should be a semi colon, with a comma after "while".
  • "...the Fantasy Ride era..." is jargon. Casual reads will not be able to identify with this.
  • "wasn't interested in first week sales or performance". is enclosed with quotation marks as if it was a direct quote, but the source does not support that. This phrase is never used in the text, although I do see how the original editor adapted it. Either a direct quote should be added, or the marks should be removed.
  • "...a Gerrick G. Kennedy..." is gimmicky and archaic. Why not simply, "However, Gerrick Kennedy, from..."?
  • "...either Fantasy Ride or Basic Instinct." perhaps I'm nitpicking, but shouldn't this be: "...both Fantasy Ride and Basic Instinct."?
  • "including" in the next sentence should be "included".
  • Again "commercially viable" is not a direct quote appearing in the Rap-Up source that follows. I think it needs to be cited or removed. Otherwise, it's potentially defamatory original research.

Stopping for now...--Thevampireashlee (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and reviews
  • Compositions should not be plural.
  • "uptempo" is not supported by the source.
  • "base-heavy" is a spelling error. Should be "bass-heavy". Bass should probaby link to Roland TR-808
  • A comma belongs after "release" in the next sentence. Another comma after "singles" in the sentence after that.
  • " "Sweat" is a throwback to Ciara's roots, drawing comparison to and inspiration from the singer's previous singles "Goodies" (2004) and "Like a Boy" (2006)" is not supported by the Rapfix source. No instance of "throwback" or "roots" are mentioned. Goodies is not mentioned, although a slight pun on the word "goodie" seems to infer that. Like a Boy is mentioned, though. Revise the sentence so that it mentions the similarities between "Sweat" and "Like a Boy".
  •  Not done. Only "Goodies" was removed. The other errors were not corrected. The sentence makes no sense now and is worse than before. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2012

(UTC)

  • Missing a comma after "Townsend".
  • Missing a comma after the word "line".

Otherwise, okay.

Chart performance
  • "Sweat' made its chart debut on June 23, 2012 on , where it debuted straight at number one." is far too wordy, reusing the same words. Try trimming it down. Suggestion: "On June 23, 2012, "Sweat" debuted at number one on the US Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart."
  • Airplay is an unfamiliar term to those who aren't music enthusiasts. Link to it.
  • "It would go on to peak at number eighty-six." should be "It went on to peak..."
  • Table is good.
Release history
  • All good here.
Categories, templates, and references.
  • 2012 singles and Epic Records singles? Should these be changed to "promotional singles" or simply "songs"? Hair (Lady Gaga song), a GA promotional single, uses "songs" as opposed to singles.

Other than this, great job. After these last few changes are made, I'll promote this to good. Excellent work and thanks for being patient with me. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Overall appraisal[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Waiting on copy edits. Done
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Superb layout. Adheres to MoS. Lead adequately summarizes all points of the article.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    References listed at the bottom under a header.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    All challeng-able statements are sourced reliably.
    C. No original research:
    All possible instances of OR have been resolved.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Adequately coverage for a song of this type.
    B. Focused:
    Stays on topic.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Any biases have been resolved.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No edit wars.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No relevant images available. Single cover is appropriately licensed, sourced, and rationalized for fair use.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    No images available.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Awaiting final changes.

Single infobox?[edit]

This needs to be address before the review continues, I think, to avoid further edit warring. Is the song a song or a single? The text of the article calls this a "promotional single". Taking Hair (Lady Gaga song) as an example of another good article with the same dilemma, it seems that the blue coloration is appropriate for promotional singles. I suppose the distinction between a promo single and a regular single is necessary. Thoughts? --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into the article thoroughly, I see Billboard is sourced as saying "Sweat" is a promotional single. My verdict is: blue infobox. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to the user who changed it to song. Its a tetchy one as a previous Ciara release "Like a Surgeon" was deemed a single and that was only sent to radio. However Billboard ran an article about that song calling it a single. In the chart listings "Sweat" is clearly a promotional single. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me. I didn't notice Billboard listing it as a promo single. Blue infobox it is. Cheers, Statυs (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I posted the final changes for the review. After they have been resolved, I'll promote this to good. Nice work. :) --Thevampireashlee (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrick Kennedy[edit]

Gerrick Kennedy's opinion on why Basic Instinct failed commercially is not needed. Ciara, herself, said that there was one pushback so "multiple pushbacks" is not true. Also, while there were leaks during this time, there were very few, all of which which didn't get very much attention. The way it is written in the article doesn't make sense. The sentence before it says Ciara wasn't interested in first week sales or performance [before the album came out] & the next sentence gives someone's opinion on why it failed. They don't go together.

One more thing. Years are not needed after album titles. There are multiple good articles [Love Sex Magic for example] that doesn't include the years. If someone wants to know the year an album was released, they could just click on the article. Also, just because it's like that on good articles you see, doesn't mean it has to be on all of them. —MPQzy (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Gerrick Kennedy is not for his opinion but because its a reliable source to acknowledge that leaks and pushbacks took place. There were obviously enough high profile leaks for one of America's biggest music critics (the LA Times is renouned for its reviews) to comment on and for Ciara to give an interview with. The sentence prior reads that Ciara wasn't interested in her first week sales, while the Kennedy sentence explains why Basic Instinct underperformed. Not only does it make sense but its completely justified in the context its written. I.e. talking about expectations (Ciara before the album was released) and then talking about reality after the album's release (Kennedy anaylsing the performance of the album). Also the claim "Ciara said there was one pushback herself" is sourced/credited where?
As for the use of dates, these provide a lot of context when the albums were released several years apart it provides useful information. other stuff isnt always the best argument for the removal of such thing. When the article was written effort was put in and resulted in dates being included after the first occurance of the album title. It physically doesn't make logical sense to spend the time and effort removing them when they do no harm and actually provide useful information. They're not there because someone might want to know the date of an album release, they were put in place because they help understand the context when your talking about artist works spanning someone's career. If you can provide an actual reason beyond "they don't exist at 'Love Sex Magic' article" for their removal I'll actually go and remove them myself. Same for the Ciara multiple vs single pushbacks thing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweat_(Ciara_song)&oldid=1210597716"