Talk:Señorita (Justin Timberlake song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hi. I will be reviewing the Señorita (song) article. Please give me a couple of hours to read through the article and collect my thoughts. I usually print the article out and go over it with a pencil, and write my notes on paper before typing them up, so please be patient. I'll post my review and any comments when I'm done. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I don't think you need the translation of the title, because it was released as "Senorita" in the English speaking countries.
See "La Isla Bonita" as an example. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay. I think that's a rather weak argument, but it's not a deal breaker.

Check for typos such as in The song was co-written by Timbelake
Done.

"Señorita" also appeared in the Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Austria, and Switzerland charts, respectively. No need to use "respectively", because you're not saying what it's respective of. Also, although you don't have to list every country here, because we're on en.wiki, you should say whether it was released in other English speaking territories, esp. UK, Aus, Ire
Removed "respectively". I'm kind of lost with what your suggesting with the country listings.
Well because this is the Wikipedia for the English language, most readers will be from English speaking countries. They won't be as interested in whether it was released in Sweden and Austria, as they will be in whether it was released and charted in the UK, Ireland, and Australia, so those countries should be included. Anyway, I went and added it myself.
Thank you for that. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the release of Timberlake's solo album, Justified, Timberlake and the album's producers, Williams and Hugo gave MTV News a preview of the album in August 2002. is a bit repetitive on "the album". Can it be re-written at all?
I think I got it.

~~Lisa Rose of The Star-Ledgercommented needs a space between "Ledger" and "commented"~~

He directs the men to sing "It feels like somethings heatin up up can leave wit you" and the women to sing, "I don't know what I'm thinking bout / really leavin wit you". I'm not sure whether or not the words are actually like that in the record; I've tried listening but I can't make out for sure. If they are, we should at least be using punctuation and apostrophies to indicate letters are being left off and words are truncated. A source would help, to be honest
Done.

Jonathan Takiff of the Philadelphia Daily News wrote that the track and "Nothing Else" reshape "Stevie Wonder-style Latin pop". what is "Nothing Else"?
"Nothing Else" is a song from Timberlake's solo album.

~~Instead of saying The song received mixed reception as well., it might be better to start the paragraph with "The song received criticism as well." since this paragraph is about the criticisms~~

The two sentences beginning Timberlake performed the song live on the sketch comedy show... about performing on SNL and the Grammys don't seem to fit in the criticism paragraph, or any of the reception section. Perhaps it would be better to move the sentences to the Background section?
No, it wouldn't make sense to have it in the Background section. The latter section is for development of the song. See "This Love" and "My Love" as examples.
Okay. I guess it would be out of place, but to me it seems equally out of place here. That said, I can't think of any other place it might fit better.

In the chart performance section, do you have information on how it performed in the UK?
Added bit.
I've expanded on this and said what it's peak position was.

In Australia, it debuted at number six and retired within six weeks of its appearance. how does a song "retire"? If you mean that it dropped out of the charts, I would say that as it's clearer. Or if the label pulled it from being on sale, you could say that
That's another way to say that the song made its final appearance on that particular chart.
OK

I see it on mostly all GA and FA singles articles, but it's not in this one: an embedded list of all the chart positions. Is there a reason for this? The prose could be an introduction to the table
I'll add a table.
Hope you don't mind but I added it to the Chart performance section. It just seemed more of a logical placement
Thanks again.

Timberlake was asked about the concept of the video, but said that the video was still in development. When? This sentence seems misplaced or unfinished. When was he asked this?
I think I got this.

B. MoS compliance:
a funk song with an organic feel — and quite close to Stevie Wonder's soulful style." even though it's a qote, we should still follow the MOS on WP:DASHes, that says that em-dashes shouldn't be used with spaces, only en-dashes can.
Done.

In the latter category, he's more engaging -- the stud on the loose same with this.. the two hyphens should be changed to a spaced en-dash or unspace em-dash
After seeing this, changed.

or the first paragraph at Chart performance, please check MOS:NUM. I think that when you're dealing with comparable numbers, it should be either all figures or written out, so "number 27" and "number 5", or "number twenty-seven" and "number five", rather than "number 27" and "number 5"
Wait, what?

and — love it or hate it — we same as before re spaced em-dashes
Done.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
"Señorita" is a "Spanish number" infused with an R&B,[1] Is there a reference for the quote?
The source, for the "Spanish number", says "The 13-track album starts off with Senorita, a Spanish number infused with R and B, in which Justin is joined by Chad Hugo from The Neptunes." If you're still unsure, I'd be glad to send you the article by e-mail.
No, no, that's fine. I'm going to repeat that reference immediately after the quote, though, just so there's no confusion
Hey, the last thing I want is to be blocked for adding false info. into an article. Believe me, I want the stuff I work on to be accurate and true.

All online sources verify facts in the article. Will assume that references offline do as well

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
They all look like RSes to me

C. No original research:
He directs the men to sing "It feels like somethings heatin up up can leave wit you" and the women to sing, "I don't know what I'm thinking bout / really leavin wit you". Who provided the lyrics for this? I think they're slightly wrong, @ "up up" at least. So it doesn't look like somebody just listened to the song and typed in the lyrics, they should be sourced. http://www.metrolyrics.com/senorita-lyrics-justin-timberlake.html should be okay as a RS because of http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS115474+16-Apr-2009+MW20090416
I got this.

~~In North America, the single was officially solicited to radio in September 2003. Can you get a source on this?~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images need alt text
Bear with me with whatever I came up with. I'm not good in that area.
Added something.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The prose needs a bit of tightening, and a couple of things I think need sourcing, otherwise it's all good. Article is on hold for seven days to allow editors the time to address the review. Good luck and well done to all who've contributed, Matthewedwards : Chat 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It's a pretty good article anyway, so the review was no trouble. I hope you don't mind but I've reordered a couple of sections. I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs to see if they had a MOS or layout guide but they didn't, so I'll explain why here:
I moved the music video section to follow immediately after the development. I think this is a natural flow, from writing and recording the song, and including it on the album, and moving to shooting and directing a music video attatched to the song.

This bumped the reception section down so it now follows the Music video section. Since the music video section ends with critical commentary on the video, it makes sense to then move into the reception of the song as a whole

After that is the chart performance section, which is basically a "reception from the public masses", and I moved the summary table to be a subsection of this part

And the article ends with the tracklisting, refs, etc etc

If you don't agree, feel free to revert Matthewedwards : Chat 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I changed some of the references in the chart position table per WP:CHARTSCHART, which seems to indicate that the Hung Median websites are favored over aCharts. There were a couple of discrepancies also that I corrected. The Australian one is one I remember; in the table it said it peaked at 4, but in the prose it said 6, and also that it was on the charts for 6 weeks, but it was actually 11, according to both Hung and aCharts. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I noted above, thank you for your additions to the article. Though, the changing of the sections was kind of off. I'm modeling the article from previous song articles I've worked on. I also go with the style that other songs, that I have not worked on, go with. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem. Based on the changes made to the article and responses to some of my queries, I'm satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria now, so I'm going to pass it and list it at WP:GA. Congratulations, and well done to all the contributors to this article! Matthewedwards : Chat 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]