Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Better Than Today/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Better Than Today edit

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to reach featured article status. This was in FAC a day ago and general consensus was that the article had prose problems that should have been solved earlier in PR. Because of this, I am now here. Note: Australian English (which is similar to British) is the preference.

Thanks, I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The final comments on the previous peer review are dated 30 March. The rules of WP:PR require a gap of at least 14 days between peer reviews of the same article, so this had been renominated a little prematurely. However, I will post comments within a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]): I have had to deal with this rather hurriedly. The article is certainly in better shape than it was during its recent FAC, but I think that some further work is necessary.

Lead
  • Despite your explanation offered in the recent FAC, the phrase "positive to mixed reviews" reads confusingly. Are we to understand that the song received no entirely negative reviews? If this is so, it would clarify if you said "both positive and mixed reviews from contemporary critics", but as it stands people will continue to wonder what you mean Good Point. Done.
  • "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting its similarities to Minogue's previous music videos." Most who, or what? Done.
Background
  • "Pallot stated when Minogue personally called her later..." very awkward phrasing. I'd delete "personally" as redundant, and rephrase: "Pallot stated that when Minogue called her later, ..." Done.
  • Why were subsequent sessions that Minogue had with the duo "less successful"?
    • I don't know. That's what the source said. I could try to find more info, but finding that article was a batch of hell in it's own right. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon my ignorance, but what does "retool" mean?
Composition
  • Not an appropriate title for this section. It deals with the song's general character, and includes some review comments, but does not discuss the song's composition.
    • The composition basically describes stuff that could be found in the sheet music and it's described structure. I feel like this section does this. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary repetition of name in "Pallot's version of the song is composed in the key of G major with Pallot's vocal range..." Just "a vocal range will do". Likewise the Minogue sentence later. Done.
  • General readers probably won't understand voice ranges expressed in terms of B4 and G6 etc, and will find the chord progression details mystifying; what will they make of "F-E♭-Dm-Dm-E♭-F", for example. I am not sure how much of this technical information is useful in a general encyclopedia article.
Critical reception
  • Avoid "...reviews. Reviews..."
  • "Mikael Wood of Entertainment Weekly called it..." Define "it" Done.
  • Second paragraph: the word "officially" is superfluous Done.
  • "They chimed in" is too informal
Chart performance
  • You cannot have "worse" success. You can have "worse results", or "less success". Done.
Music video
  • I haven't had much time to look at this section, but I'd say the girls are wearing pink wigs as rather than "like" shoulder pads. Done.
  • Female dancers (plural) can't be wearing "a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band (singular). The Pac-man link isn't at all helpful to someone like me, who wondered what a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band was (do I have to read the whole Pac-man article to find out. Done. Bad wording.
General

A lot of work has gone into the article since its FAC outing, but I still feel that the prose could do with some further polish. From the edit history it is evident that most of the work has been done by a single editor; I feel that before a return to FAC, a fresh, final copyedit from a previously non-involved editor would be a big advantage.

I hope these comments are helpful to you. As I am not at present able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any queries you wish to raise, arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]):
Resolved comments from Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Lead
her eleventh studio album, Aphrodite (2010). -> why the comma? Done.
Critics compared the track's composition to Minogue's works in the early 90s on Rhythm of Love and the songs of the Scissor Sisters. They also applauded the dance-oriented lyrics. -> merge them. Done.
  • Background
recording sessions for Aphrodite -> link the album Done.
to retool the album. After being retooled by Price -> synonyms needed Fixed Earlier. Double Check.
  • Composition
Christel Loar of PopMatters and Nick Levine of Digital Spy -> wrong italics See above.
  • Critical reception
Loar of PopMatters -> as above See above.
Popjustice, while -> as above See above.
Nima Baniamer of Contact Music -> as above See above.
Levine of Digital Spy -> as above See above.
  • Chart performance
from the Aphrodite album on that chart -> Why the link here? Done.
Minogue also claimed the third ... the first artist to claim two -> Synonyms needed Done.
the video for "Get Outta My Way" -> overlinked Done.
music videos for "2 Hearts" and "The One" -> overlinked Done.
Pink is the New Blog -> wrong italics See above.
HardCandy -> wrong italics See above.
  • Live performances
2009 For You, For Me Tour -> overlinked Done.
the annual Royal Variety Performance -> wrong italics
As far as I know, it is a televised affair. You could say the same situation as Children in Need. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing
"Can't Get You Out of My Head" (BBC Live Lounge Version) – 3:16 -> overlinked Done.
"Get Outta My Way" (BBC Live Lounge Version) – 3:40 -> overlinked Done.
  • Credits and personnel
Source:[53][7][4] -> Source:[4][7][53] Done.

:20.- Apple Inc.. -> Apple Inc. Done.

She received a standing ovation from all four judges; Dannii Minogue, who is a judge on the show and Minogue's sister, gave her praise. She called the performance a "ten out of ten".[38] -> Yes, it is sourced, probably neutral, but we need to know that her sister loves her? or that all judges gave her an standing ovation?
I saw such information given in other GA's. Honestly it is spot-filler information, but it does represent reception. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to 'I Don't Feel Like Dancing' [sic] right? -> Exactly why it is wrong?
The original title of the song is "'I Don't Feel Like Dancin'". Still want me to change it? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:QUOTE, "If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic]", this typographical is irrelevant and the best is correct it. Done.

Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 18:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chart performance
The section in not neutral: "It proved to be her least successful UK charting [single] since..."; "single had similar or worse success in other European countries"
Yet in the next paragraph, I mention her success on the American charts. And after that, I talk about how Minogue saw the single as a failure herself. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding positive content after negative content won't make it neutral, in any way. The best to do is write it neutral: "[the] single had similar or worse success in other European countries" to "[the] single had regular performance as well in other European countries" or something like that. Also, note that the first quote is grammatically incorrect, I added a missing word within brakets. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I revised it and some of the sentance could be debated as neutral. I removed any part of those sentences that couldn't be proved with the citations. Also, I didn't add the word "single" because it is her worst charting, period. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, "Better Than Today" is one of Minogue's lowest charting singles in the United Kingdom. It proved to be her least successful UK charting since 2008's "The One" which peaked at number 36." -> unsourced
Would the chart positions of "The One" be a sufficient resource in this case? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be WP:SYN. USe a source which compares both chart performances on that country (e.g. ChartStats of Minogue). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
which peaked at number 69. -> unsourced
Would cited chart positions be sufficient? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cited.
  • General

The article should be written in Australian English (e.g. I have only experience with BE and AmE, but sentences like "colored font" should not be "coloured font"?)

I can understand Brit English, but when I'm typing, Am English usually comes out. I need someone to proofread it using Aus English. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to do this before nominating it to FAC, it would no take many time.
  • Composition and critical reception
Popjustice compared -> wrong italics
See previous peer review for explanation.
In the previous PR you stated that there were no consensus about this. Regardless of a consensus or not, this is a grammar issue. Published stuff (albums (excepting singles), books, films, newspapers, etc.), latin nomenclature, to do emphasis, and other things have to go in italic text. Per MOS:ITALIC: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized", an neither of them are online magazines, newspapers and/or new sites with original content. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Yes they are. All sites italicized are online publications with original material. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are proably confunding the originality here. The material passes the threshold of originality, but they are not listing new things (which is that kind of originality). If those websites were the very first in review singles, they should be italized, but they are not. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Popjustice is a highly respected music website with a editorial staff and the works. It's staying. I Help, When I Can. [12] 05:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, after acknowledging that both "Better Than Today" and "Get Outta My Way" charted poorly across the world, she confirmed there would be no more singles released from the album.[26] -> relevant to the album, not the song.
Sentence tells us why "Better Than Today" is the last single. Backs up statement in lead. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then, it is an incorrect section to make that statement. Also, it is not neutral. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the chart performance is the reason. It is correct. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video
I, as a reader see the next of the music video image: Minogue holding a microphone singing in front of a stage wearing a blue dress]]. Therefore, the image fails our fair use policy as images of Minogue doing that exist.
They also show the projection of the lips, her wardrobe in the video and the shoulder pads. If I write an in depth caption, would that cure this worry? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Write a decent caption won't make it pass NFCC#8, because the main idea behind the sceen is "Minogue in the video (doing something that can be repelaced by free content)." I'd use images of Kyle throughout the article instead.
Most of these performances resembled ones from the tour and the music video as well. -> Unsourced
I could cite the videos themselves, or the choreo. I think that I have provided adequate citations for the wardrobe. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite them {{cite video}}. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
1.- Allmusic. -> wrong italics. Passes MOS:ITALIC.
4.- Publisher needed
5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 26, 27, 28.1, 32, 44, 50, 52, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73.- as ref 1
14, 15, 19, 36, 37, 42.- as ref 4
Some of them don't have publishers listed because the publishers are the exact same entity. Change anyway? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If thry repeat both (e.g. BBC. BBC) the best to do is use the publisher field only. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Novice7
    • Query:The sheet music says Better Than Today: Kylie – Digital Sheet Music, but it's used to analyze Pallot's version too. Does it really say about Pallot's version of the song?
    • More comments to follow :) Novice7 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Better_Than_Today/archive2&oldid=1143113963"