Jump to content

Talk:Spoopy/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 18:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Will review this article tomorrow; prior to that, I suggest you add a Credits and personnel section to it. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake, Thanks. Per my recent work on similar digitally-released EPs by drag queens (Now That's What I Call Drag Music, Vol. 1, The West Christmas Ever, Drag Is Magic) and their respective GA reviews (here, here, here), I think you'll find Credits/Personnel sections are actually discouraged when the only known credits are the performers. There are not even production credits to add, let alone participating musicians, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

Composition[edit]

  • Retitle to Background and composition since a lot of it is background info, unless you can find more on the respective sides and split to two sections
    • I won't not consider ay of this text background; all the content is related to the EP's songs and title. Background info would be a summary of Sharon Needles' prior work, EP conception, etc. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Background info can be classified from the title statement though; or maybe you can find some to add? --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any updates on this since an article is supposed to begin with the background section? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Kyle Peake, I've changed the first section to "Background and composition" and added mention of her previous studio album releases. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Img needs alt text plus the main text needs to be reworded to something relevant to the section and remove the wikilink on Sharon Needles
  • "Sharon Needles' Spoopy features" → "Sharon Needles explained that Spoopy features"
    • The EP is a collection of 6 Halloween-themed cover versions. This is just a fact, based on sourcing, we don't need Sharon Needles' confirmation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The wikilink is redundant either way though and it was directly explained by her though, which certifies the fact. --K. Peake 08:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, not sure about the cover version wikilink
  • [1] should solely be at the end of the sentence before [2]
  • "Sharon Needles said of the EP's title:" → "Sharon Needles said of the title:"
  • "or you’re over" → "or you're over"
  • Target Target to Target Corporation
  • "I think they’re" → "I think they're"
  • "Furthermore, she said:" → "Furthermore, she stated:"
  • Wikilink Urban Dictionary to itself
  • "Bobby Pickett's novelty song" → "A cover version by Sharon Needles of Bobby Pickett's novelty song"
    • Opted for slightly different wording, but I've clarified the song is a cover. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sharon Needles has said of the song," → "She has said of the song,"
    • Not done only because my wording for the above request is slightly different and does not mention Sharon Needles by name, so doing so here is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target rock n' roll Rock and roll
  • Target trick or treat to Trick-or-treating
  • Use the release year in brackets for the AC/DC song rather than putting written "in 1979", since it is not verified as being written then
  • Should it be written in prose that the following songs are also covers or not needed to with the context given?
  • "and later recorded by" → "and later released by"
  • "was written and originally recorded by Rockwell in 1984." → "was written by Rockwell and released in 1984."
  • Use correct citation(s) to back up the writer credits, since you can only use info from fellow Wikis without using references if it's for the release year, writing credits need to be sourced and maybe use the credits for the EP or something?
    • I'd rather remove writing credits (which are just basic descriptions for each song based on their respective Wikipedia entries) than pump up the article with sources just confirming song credits. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I understand, don't you have something like maybe the Tidal credits for the EP itself or something? --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Kyle Peake, I've checked several digital music outlets for specific credits. I don't think any of the claims are contentious -- they are supported by the opening sentences and infoboxes of their respective articles, and users can easily click on a song title for confirmation or more information. If you feel strongly about removing, I will, but I feel like the text is appropriate for a summary of the EP's contents. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should remove since it's going as far as to give writing credits, which need sourcing and that would be too many refs to add. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
           Done Bummer. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The EP is approximately 15 minutes," → "Spoopy is approximately 15 minutes and"
  • Use a different source than Spotify to verify the length

Release and promotion[edit]

  • Both of the imgs need alt text and remove wikilink on Sharon Needles for the first, plus not sure again about ex target and target drag performer to Drag (clothing)
    • Added alt text, removed link. I'm fine keeping "ex" (perhaps this will be unlinked over time) and I'd rather just link "drag". ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pamela Anderson's (pictured in 2003) slow motion running" → "the slow motion running of Pamela Anderson (pictured in 2003)," on img 2 main text, with the appropriate wikilink
    • I don't understand what you want the entire caption to say. If I just replace this part of the sentence, the text does not make sense to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant switch only this part of the sentence, since it currently makes no sense with the brackets after Pamela Anderson's due to the apostrophe. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Kyle Peake, I just removed the parenthetical which I don't think is necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure there wasn't any more promotion outside of the music video?
  • "was released digitally by" → "was released for digital download by" with the target
  • Remove wikilink on record label
  • Mention the music video's release date in its first sentence
  • Is the target needed on ex?
  • "RuPaul's Drag Race contestant" → "RuPaul's Drag Race contestant,"
  • Any more info on her ex's involvement with the video?
  • Maybe target pinup to Pin-up model?
  • [8] should solely be at the end of the sentence after [1]
  • Target Hollywood to Cinema of the United States
  • Wikilink G-rated to itself per MOS:LINK2SECT
  • Remove target on rock & roll
  • "Furthermore, Sharon Needles said of Alaska's involvement:" → "Sharon Needles elaborated, saying of Alaska Thunderfuck's involvement with the music video:"
  • "And went full-on" → "And [sic] went full-on" since this is a grammar error so sic is needed in the context
    • I just changed "And" to "and". I don't think sic is needed if we just fix this very minor error. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That reads fine but needs the lowercase inserted in [] to verify that it isn't a direct part of the quotation; I copyedited this for you. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He called Alaska's appearance" → "He continued, calling Alaska Thunderfuck's appearance"
  • "said the video" → "said the visual"
  • Shouldn't the Pamela Anderson info be written out in the opening para of this section, since this one is about reception not synopsis?
    • I tried to open with release and personnel info, followed by a general description, followed by more specific descriptions and critics' opinions. The Pamela Anderson thing is just in passing and not a description of the video in general. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do understand what you mean, it is fine actually since you only mention she recreates the character on the img and don't go into much detail. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He opined," → "Wass opined,"
  • "the video "down right 'spoopy!'"" → "the music video "down right 'SPOOPY!'"" since that is what the quotation says, unless you use [] to show you edited it
    • To me, this is just a caps change to make the word MoS-compliant. I don't see a need for [ ] or all caps. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • Retitle to Critical reception
  • Add "Spoopy was met with generally positive reviews from music critics." as the opening sentence with the target
  • Maybe try to add more reviews since there is only two right now which is not enough to verify if the reception was generally positive? Though I am suggesting to add that now for when you can add more reviews to back it up.
    • If I could find other reviews, I would add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the 'Bops 4 Gays' list inclusion and Yahoo! Entertainment review; I've incorporated both. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Cook of Instinct wrote, "On" → "Cook wrote, "On"
  • Sure you shouldn't use own words for some of these reviews at parts since there is a heavy amount of quoting?
    • Since there aren't many reviews to draw from, I think the current level of detail is fine. The section is just one paragraph, and I think the critics opinions should be given weight since they are the few who elected to comment on the EP. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said the artist" → "He said that she"
  • "Cook said Sharon Needles" → "Cook continued, stating that Sharon Needles"
  • "he said the artist" → "Cook explained that Sharon Needles"
    • Done, but used "opined" instead of "explained" -- I don't think Cook is explaining anything here, he is just sharing his opinion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target pop to Pop music
  • "described the EP" → "described Spoopy"

Track listing[edit]

  • Lay out like a normal album track listing, even if writer(s) and producer(s) aren't able to be added
  • Remove Spotify from here
    • Why? Spotify has been helpful for these digital releases. Even Drag Is Magic only uses Spotify. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Spotify is no longer used to verify the EP's total length, I've removed use of Spotify here as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing should be written as adapted from AllMusic and Apple Music, with both refs at the end of the statement in numerical order

References[edit]

  • Copyvio score is dangerously high at 85.6%; this can be fixed by decreasing the quoting from the EW ref
    • Do you have a specific suggestion here? I actually think the two block quotes present a lot of helpful and succinct detail. They are properly attributed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cut down or paraphrase quotes, since the copyright level is too high. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand the two paragraphs are copied from the source, but they are attributed properly and specifically designated as quotes by the artist. Are they really a copyright violation if attributed properly? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Take a look at WP:OVERQUOTE, as that will give you a better understanding. --K. Peake 08:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • Remove the publisher from ref 1 and fix MOS:QWQ issues
    • I think I fixed the MoS issue (you mean quote within quote?) but we should keep LOGO TV as publisher. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should only be citing one work/website or one publisher; no combining of the two, that is not advised. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Kyle Peake, Can you show me which Wikipedia guideline says this? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was informed that formatting with citations should be consistent throughout, so publisher can't always be cited alongside work/website here therefore only use one at a time; things like Idolator are publisher anyway. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          That's not even true, though. Idolator is the website and Hive Media is the publisher. The citations are formatted consistently. Unless you can share where a guideline says to use one or the other, I don't think further citation formatting is required. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Pride.com as publisher instead for ref 2 and remove the other publisher
  • Remove the publisher from ref 3
  • Ref 4 is an unreliable source
    • You're saying Spotify is unreliable? I see this used in album articles all the time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target The WOW Report to World of Wonder (company) on ref 6 and remove the publisher
    • Why? Current citation format is fine. The work is The WOW Report, and World of Wonder is the publisher. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix MOS:QWQ and MOS:CAPS issues with ref 7, plus should you cite her Twitter name or stage name for the author?
    • Done with QWQ and CAPS, but not sure what you mean re: author. Citation says @sharon_needles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Idolator as publisher instead for ref 9 and remove the other one
    • Nothing wrong with current format. Idolator is the work, Hive Media is the publisher. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite AllMusic as publisher instead for ref 10
  • Cite Apple Music instead for ref 11 with the wikilink

External links[edit]

  • Remove Sharon Needles from the title of the first link, since that is solely her album and not a cover like the songs below it
  • Are you sure The Fader link can't be used as a ref to add info in the body?
    • The only thing this source says about the EP is the following: "Earlier this month, Needles released Spoopy, a new collection of Halloween-themed songs including her very own cover of the iconic "Monster Mash." I don't think this is helpful for the article body, but I've included as an external link because related. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments and verdict[edit]

  •  On hold right now, but are you sure this article can be broad enough in its coverage... no offence, but not every article can become a GA so I'm unsure right now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyle Peake, I know this article is shot, but I've included as much sourcing as I can find on the topic. I would say this entry is quite similar to some of the other digital releases by drag queens I've promoted to Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've addressed most of your concerns, but please let me know if there are things I need to revisit. Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer Glad to see you responded quickly, I have made some statements for you now. --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyle Peake, Thanks! (And sorry for all the pings!) ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer It's fine but heads up for next time, do one mention at the end of the page and then I can look upwards to respond to any comments above. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Believer Just a reminder incase you forgot (I am patient but thought you might have not noticed them), I have some queries above that you still have not replied to. --K. Peake 16:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer Have done some copy editing but the only issues right now are the copyright level and that a ref is missing for the albums info: maybe use this? --K. Peake 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyle Peake, I found a source specifically about Sharon confirming all the album release dates. I've lowered the copyright score down to 73; keep in mind, part of this percentage is Sharon quoting the Urban Dictionary definition of 'spoopy', which I've removed outside the block quote but still counts as copied text. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm not sure CultureFix.co.uk is a reputable publication, nor does the article say anything not confirmed by other sources. I've tried hard to get the copyright percentage down, but I'm trimmed the Spoopy definition, Universal monsters, and Baby Jane quotes as much as possible without taking out too much relevant context. Just reading the article, I feel like the current quote lengths and detail are appropriate, but I'm open to more specific suggestions. I'm hoping I've addressed your concerns but you may need to flag if there's anything left to address. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer ✓ Pass now as the fixes are fine and I added an archive for the Billboard ref since the tool did not seem to do that for some reason. --K. Peake 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kyle Peake, Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spoopy/GA1&oldid=969964311"