Talk:The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this. Expect comments within a few days. Ping me or post on my talk page if the review is not up by then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I got sidetracked and am drafting the review. It should be up before May ends. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
  • For genres, EDM is not mentioned in given reference (FN2)
Lead
  • Since the view count on YouTube is subject to change, it's best to use a source other than YouTube and attribute its view count and date range to that
  • I don't think the amount of time spent at #6 in the US is needed
  • I kveld med YLVIS isn't mentioned in attributed source
  • "'The Fox', 'created to fail', has ironically and accidentally gone viral" → "While the song was "created to fail", it went viral"
Production
  • "In an interview with Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, the brothers stated" → "The brothers told Aftenposten"
  • No need to have "In an interview" for "In an interview on the Norwegian-Swedish talk show Skavlan"
  • "Bård described the writing process for "The Fox" in an interview with Billboard in the United States" → "Bård told Billboard that"
  • "Bård, being interviewed by Entertainment Weekly, talked about their intention of making 'The Fox'" simply doesn't read well
  • "M4SONIC described producing 'The Fox':"..... awkward phrasing
  • Try to paraphrase the last two quotes; they're rather lengthy
Music video and composition
  • This should have its own section and not be a subsection of "Production"
  • "typical" in "typical electronic dance pop" is unneeded and vague
  • "increasingly absurd" sounds biased
  • I'd merge the third and fourth paragraph per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs
Reception and responses
  • I'd simply title this "reception"
  • Not sure that top quote from Bård is needed
  • "Catchiness" isn't really a neutral description
Live performances
  • This should be its own section
  • It might help to include commentary on performances
  • "The song was later performed live during concerts given in 2014-2015 in Norway and Sweden as a part of duo's The Expensive Jacket Tour" needs to be sourced, and "2014-2015" should be "2014–2015" per WP:DASH
Children's book
  • Like "live performances", this should also be its own section
Analysis
  • Five reviews doesn't seem like very much for a very well-known song that went viral online
Popular culture
  • This should be its own section
  • I'd retitle this to "In popular culture"
  • "This song appears in Just Dance 2015" is missing a citation, and I'd replace "this" with "the".
References
  • Dead links need fixing
  • When available, each reference needs authors, names of works, page titles, and accessdates
  • YouTube is discouraged as a source for potential copyright concerns. Additionally, the "Y" and "T" are capitalized in its name.
  • Are "Mother Jones", "Gossip Cop", "Screen Junkies", "hkclubbing.com", "4Music", or "MelOn" reliable?
  • I'm not convinced "The Daily Beast", "The Lantern", "In The Mix", "Heavy.com", or "The Rock Father" are good sources
  • "Toronto Sun", "Gigwise", TMZ, "London Evening Standard", Twitter, "The Huffington Post", and "On The Red Carpet" are not reliable
  • "The Telgraph" should read The Daily Telegraph
  • "The" is part of The A.V. Club's title
  • Yahoo! shouldn't be italicized, and remove the "chart watch" bit from work/publisher field
Overall
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality: Needs copyediting
  • Manual of Style compliance: Not exactly
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout: Could be better
  • Reliable sources: Poor/questionable sources need replacing
  • No original research: Dead links make things harder to verify, and not everything is properly attributed
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects: More reviews would benefit the article
  • Focused: No excess detail
  • Neutral?: Not exactly
  • Stable?: Looks good
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  • Pass or Fail?: Since there are too many problems right now (mainly with references), I'm failing this without putting it on hold. Hopefully this will help improve the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fox_(What_Does_the_Fox_Say%3F)/GA1&oldid=664915485"