Talk:Too Much (Spice Girls song)

film

There's also a film called too much, see here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094164/ dreamcatcher23 22:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Too Much (Spice Girls song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I started a review of this article before realising that Special Cases had already begun a review (no reviewer name is shown in the GA noms list) Obviously I don't want to interfere but thought it might be useful to point out one concern I found. In the lead the article states "Although "Too Much" failed to match the success of its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life", in the United States, it peaked nine places higher on the Billboard Hot 100, at number nine, becoming their fourth top ten single on the chart." while in the body it states "In the U.S., "Too Much" did better than its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life", but was not as successful as Spice's singles had been." Presumably the sentence in the lead is wrong and should say that the single failed to match the success of the singles from Spice but did perform better than its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life"? Cavie78 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As Special Cases has been indefinitely blocked I'm going to be taking over this here review. Will post any issues I find below over the course of today. Cavie78 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

All looks good. I only have a couple of concerns: which are detailed below. Cavie78 (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• As previously a stated, in the lead the article states "Although "Too Much" failed to match the success of its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life", in the United States, it peaked nine places higher on the Billboard Hot 100, at number nine, becoming their fourth top ten single on the chart." while in the body it states "In the U.S., "Too Much" did better than its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life", but was not as successful as Spice's singles had been." Presumably the sentence in the lead is wrong and should say that the single failed to match the success of the singles from Spice but did perform better than its predecessor, "Spice Up Your Life"?

Corrected. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• How does the radio edit differ from the album version? You should mention this in the 'Composition' section.

The ad-lib is shorter on the radio edit, in the album version the ad-lib and the instrumentation lasts longer. But I don't have a source for this. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that it's ok to state this as it's easily verifiable by listening to the radio edit. Cavie78 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Added the info, sorry for the delay. Frcm1988 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• As you are using a 'Single' infobox I would think that it would be more appropriate to use a time for the 'radio edit' of the song.

Changed. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Too Much (Spice Girls song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C290134%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090924015932/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1426543/19971112/brandy.jhtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1434499/19971203/spice_girls.jhtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4719222/The-Spice-Girls-wrap-up-Christmas.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=141301

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)