Talk:Tik Tok (song)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the review. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are dead links and redirects in the article as per this. Correct them. Done
Many of the references need proper formatting, like online sources should not be italicized, author names being incorrect, date MoS etc. Done
- Egs include ref 9, 11-20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35-66... it goes on and on. Reference formatting is an important issue as this is what the readers would go for if they want to verify the prose, and it should be attributed to the correct work and publishers whenever possible, including the authors. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe i have corrected all refs, if not please inform me of which refs in particular are incorrect. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 07:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No its still not done. Many of the references are missing the date when the work was published, online sources are not supposed to be italicized as well as wrong author names. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes? No?. Ive gone through each ref and added author, and date published where available. Any other issues? ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still not. You are now violating the WP:MoS of the article by having different formats for the dates and the online sources. Those online sources like RIANZ, ARIA, RIAA, Ultratop etc are not supposed to be italicized, however, printed media like Music Week should be italicized. I would advice you to remove that shitty {{singlechart}} template and have the older way as that would help you in properly formatting the article. In other places, there is no publisher name (Billboard) or wrong publisher (guardian.co.uk). I suggest you go through the Lady Gaga song articles and get to know about formatting. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But be careful what you put in the owrk parameter, if its an online source, don't forget to add italic quotes around it so that it removes the italicization of online source when you save it. Also, singleschart template unnecessary repeats the hung medien sources, when one source is enough to replicate the chart peaks. There is persisting problems with it. The template italicizes all the online sources and adds wrong author name like Billboard. I know using singles chart template is useful, but sometimes, its not owrth it because of all the MOS violations it introduces. I personally dropped using it from the Gaga articles and reverted back to the old ones. You don't have to use acharts as there are plenty of archives available nowadays. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, i believe i am done, charts have been rewritten, refs re-formated for consistency and removed italics. Please inform me if i missed any =) ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 08:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wonderful work. Just minor thing. In the process of reformatting, you have formatted the published sources as italicized also. For eg, Billboard, or any newspaper or printed media, The Guardian, Daily News, Thaindian etc all should be left as their italicized form. I know I am being a nit-picker, but its very best for the article. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, i was actually not aware of that, i believe i have fixed it =) ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly object to rejecting use of the singlechart macro as opposed to correcting it. If there are problems with it, those can be easily fixed. As for the references it creates being "redundant", note that they link to a unique page on each site that contains unique information, such as the duration on the individual chart.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The certifications section donot link to the certifying bodies. Done
en-dash in Credits section. Done
Musicnotes should not be linked with a url. See "4 Minutes" which is a FA, as to how to incorporate sheet music. Done
Kesha should not be addressed in first names, rather Sebert should be used. It is her real name, unlike Gaga who uses a stage name as her real name.
- Forget it, Kesha seems fine as per consensus at Talk:Kesha. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many disambiguation links. Done

Correct them please, then I will begin the prose review. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions[edit]

I believe this article is GA ready as of now with these improvements. Interesting reading.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, had some issues figuring out the italicizing thing :) ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin the prose review as soon as consensus is reached at WP:CHARTS regarding the template. Just hang on. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK the only problem I see as of now in the article is Ref 71, and WP:OVERLINK in the Chart Procession segment — There the overlinking of artist and song names need to go as it really hurts my eyes, literally. You don't need to link a song, for eg "Bad Romance" for 7 freaking times, only one is enough. Correct these things and extend the WP:LEAD a little, this is ready for GA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ref 71

Done, Fixer23 is doing a good job of correcting overlinking. So ill leave that to him for now. As for the charts, what was the conclusion of that? Are we going to put them as Macro or leave as is? Someone changed Your Love Is My Drug to macro so i dont want one macro two old style. I want them all one or the other for consistency ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as per the discussion going on at WT:CHARTS, I'm happy with the outcome and you can use the chart macro as Kww corrected the formatting issues. I'll wait for the overlinking to go, then I can pass it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the overlinking in the processions portion has been adressed, I don't see any other such offences in any other section :) Fixer23 (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed some discrepancy in the composition section. D₃ is not a high note. There is no high note in the song at all. The line It is tight in the chorus with rapped verses doesnot make any sense. There is an unsourced sentence at the end. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

Also, you should avoid terminology and WP:WEASEL words like "made its debut". Change to "debuted". --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

On the week ending December 27, 2009, the song broke records in the United States after selling 610,000 digital downloads, the highest ever by a female artist since tracking began in 2003 and second highest overall, behind "Right Round" — please check the source and make corrections. Nielsen Soundscan did not start reporting and tracking digital sales before 2005, and wrong wording "broke records". Records? The song broke gramophone records or Kesha broke it? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

File:Ke$ha - TiK ToK (Music Video).png fails WP:NFCC#3b, should be reduced to length 300px. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

~~:Which size by which size would you like so i dont have to reuplod like 5 times. ---px by ---px ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 17:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done. Fixer23 (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, Nevermind, good work. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATE. Please choose a single format for the dates. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done[reply]

~~:Please explain, couldn't find the issue.~~ ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Believe i have fixed it. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 17:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you did not understand me. At present the article randomly chooses any format like MM DD, YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD. You need to choose a single format throughtout the "date" and the "accessdate" tabs of {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates you are using. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, they all now follow YYYY-MM-DD ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 06:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, I'm passing this article now. Congratulations! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all issue have now been addressed. If there are still any outstanding issues please let me know. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]