Wikipedia:Peer review/Jesus Walks/archive1

Jesus Walks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After listening to the song for the first time, I decided to see its article. I found it like this. It looked liked a Good Article in my eyes. However, I thought it may need more work. So I requested a copyedit. But afterwards, I was still not sure if it was ready. Hopefully, this Peer Review will step me in the right direction. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Have you discussed your plans with the article's principal editors? Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be considering a GA nomination for this article on which you have 9 edits. Other editors have, respectively, 31 and 15. Have you contacted either of these editors, to let them know your plans? You are not obliged to do so, but it would be a courtesy. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I saw the edit count and it turns out that the editor with the 31 edits was a copy-editor I requested and the one with 15 is a "here-and-there" editor. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is fair enough. The article will be reviewed soon. In the meantime, perhaps you would investigate the article's online links. I found the following gave me a "broken" message: 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 43, 57, 59, 68, 76, 87 and 88. I also found that 69, 70 and 85 did not link to the articles named. It is possible that these are temporary faults, but please check and see if they are working. Brianboulton (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stumbled in here sort of accidentally; I hope I can be helpful. First, I might suggest that this article is a little long. The section on "Music and Composition," in particular, seems superfluous; there's simply more detail here than is necessary for a cogent description of the single. The "Live Performances" section could also be cut down, perhaps to highlight particularly significant performances. The "Critical Reception" and "Acclaim" sections might be merged and cut, especially the use of quotations. Finally, I'd suggest that the article could use some more images; perhaps there are other album covers (non-free, so not sure if that'd fly), or some free-use concert photos you could use? A picture of Kanye would probably work well. In any case, I'll keep this watchlisted, so let me know if you need any help. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I removed the third paragraph in "Live Performances". I didn't think the stuff in it was nessessary. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• I'm concerned about sourcing. For example, "The song is essentially a spiritual exultation, wherein West discusses how Jesus "walks" with all manner of people, from the sinner to the saint. Towards this end, the first conceptual verse of the song is told through the eyes of a drug dealer contemplating his relationship with God. It reportedly took over six months for West to draw inspiration for the second verse." is sourced to [1][2], but the first part of that (spiritual exultation, et al.) doesn't appear in those sources. Same with "West also uses the song to express his critical views on how the media seem to shy away from songs that address matters of faith, while embracing songs discussing violence, sex, and illegal drugs." And again, with "The militant soundscape of "Jesus Walks" is complemented by its lyrical nuances. In the intro, the voice of a drill sergeant initiates the song with a "Order Arms" and is answered by a squad of soldiers who shout "1-2-3-4!" This exchange is followed by West's opening lines, where he declares, "we are at war with ourselves."
• I think part of the issue with the above is POV and puffy phrasing; it all needs sources.
• The critical reception really could use some more summary, instead of just a laundry list of quotes one after another.
• I think merging "Acclaim" with "Critical reception" would make more sense (instead of having performances and chart performance sandwiched in between them).

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)