Talk:If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kyle Peake in topic GA Review
Good articleIf You're Too Shy (Let Me Know) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starIf You're Too Shy (Let Me Know) is part of the Notes on a Conditional Form series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2021Good article nomineeListed
May 16, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:03, 21 January 2021 (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

For all your contributions to the music GANs page, I will review this soon; I can seen that you are as reliable as clockwork for responses! --K. Peake 06:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you man! I appreciate it. I'm trying to get NOACF to good topic status. I just need to copyedit the remaining singles before overhauling the album itself. Looking forward to your input and experience. Cheers! (P.S. I apologize for the not-totally-proper use of British English. I’ve tried my best, but I’m used to writing in Canadian English; the strange hybrid lovechild of British and American English, lol.) Giacobbe talk 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead edit

  • Recording date is not sourced, as the body only mentions the majority of the album's recording being in 2019
  • "It was released on" → "The song was released on"
  • End the sentence with "from the album." instead, as the title will be mentioned in the first sentence in the new order
  • "The song was written by" → "It was written by"
  • "Ross MacDonald, and Matthew Healy." → "Ross MacDonald and Matthew Healy." since the article is in British English
  • "Production of the track was" → "Production of the song was"
  • Target choruses to Refrain, but it is not mentioned anywhere in the body that Ross played the instruments for the choruses
  • "performing "If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)" were" → "performing the song were"
  • "among fans of the band." → "among their fanbase."
  • Couldn't you trim down the instrumentation mentioned in the second para because it reads like a supermarket list; specifically remove flugelhorn, saxophone and trumpet since they've already been mentioned in the lead
  • Remove wikilink on guitar
  • "Lyrically, "If You’re Too Shy (Let Me Know)" details" → "Lyrically, the song details"
  • The part of the sentence that follows should be reworded since it is identically to the body so reads repetitively
  • "dependency, and despondency." → "dependency and despondency."
  • Remove wikilink on Notes on a Conditional Form
  • "given to its production," → "given to the production,"
  • "The single attained international" → "It attained international"
  • "the top twenty in" → "the top 20 in" per MOS:NUM
  • "number 50 in Belgium, and" → "as well as number 50 in Belgium and" to avoid too many commas while still making sense
  • "Domestically, "If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)"" → "Domestically, the song"
  • "for the single was" → "for the song was"

Background and release edit

  • Img is a neat addition that brings back memories, looks good too!
  • "to their second studio album," → "to their second studio album"
  • "set to be released" → "with it being set for release"
  • "second album, Notes on a Conditional Form," → "second album Notes on a Conditional Form"
  • The source mentions the album being recorded in 2019, not the majority of it; however, this needs fixing from other source(s) since I can see from the album article that it was not fully recorded that year
  • Reworded and added a second ref.   Done Giacobbe talk 15:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The title of the tour should not be in italics
  • "scheduling it for 21 February 2020 and later for 24 April 2020" the source mentions the months February and March of 2020, not the dates listed here
  • "most exhaustive recording processes on" → "most exhaustive recording processes for"
  • "to write the verses." → "to write a verse."
  • "which he said," → "which he said"
  • Why is the PF ref invoked solely at the end of the para when it is used for multiple sentences prior? This would be acceptable if the entirety of the para was backed up by the source, but it is not; try invoking around every two sentences or so as a guideline.
  • I'm afraid a little confused. This was the way I normally write articles. However, in my last GA review, the reviewer wanted to me to reformat and only cite at the last use of the ref in the paragraph. He pointed me to WP:RECITE, which I couldn't find any info on. So now I'm a little confused. Should I be citing whenever the source is used, or only at its last use in a paragraph? Giacobbe talk 14:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • (CA)Giacobbe You do have a valid point and after having read WP:REPCITE, I believe that you should only invoke ref 9 in two areas: the one it is already in and at the end of the "created the final version" sentence. This is because it is used to back up all of the sentences to the latter point, but the sentence in-between that one and the end one is solely attributed to ref 8, so you can have the last sentence also invoke ref 9 comfortably. --K. Peake 14:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove wikilink on England
  • Remove wikilink on Music For Cars Tour
  • "in the UK." → "in the United Kingdom."
  • "called it the best song" → "called it the most promising song" since not only is this what the source says, but it is most appropriate for context of a performance
  • ""Drop 'Too Shy'"" → ""Drop 'Too Shy""
  • It is written that the song was released alongside a radio edit, but the source only links to the radio edit; either reword or add another source
  • "up about [it]."" → "up about [it]"." per MOS:QUOTE

Composition edit

  • Retitle to Composition and lyrics
  • "of "If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)" showcasing" → "of "If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)", showcasing" on the audio sample text
  • "of five minutes and nineteen seconds." → "of five minutes and 19 seconds (5:19)." per MOS:NUM
  • The funk and techno elements are not sourced, unless they are from the Financial Times ref that I can't view due to not having a subscription
  • Was using WP:RECITE. I've recited it here, as per our discussion above.   Done Giacobbe talk 15:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • (CA)Giacobbe I gave a wikilink to the WP guideline properly above and this looks a lot better, identifying the elements as techno-funk! --K. Peake 15:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you! I had trouble finding it before. BTW, if you ever come across an article by the Financial Times blocked behind a paywall, simply Tweet the link and open it from there. It will let you read it through the app :) Giacobbe talk 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove wikilink on guitar
  • Remove target on samples
  • "deep grooves, and" → "deep grooves and" with the target
  • "dependency, and despondency." → "dependency and despondency."
  • The intro length, "ghostly" description, drones, reverb, and glitch elements are not sourced by the two refs at the end of the sentence or the following one
  • The ethereal and wordless parts do not appear to be backed up
  • "with Healy singing:" the lyrics that follow are not written out by the source
  • "anticipation "almost palpable."" → "anticipation "almost palpable"."
  • "I need to get back," the lyrics are not mentioned by sources as being the pre-chorus
  • "Maybe I would like you better if you took off your clothes / I wanna see and stop thinking / If you're too shy then let me know"" needs small speech marks around this part of the quote
  • [28][25][34] should be put in numerical order
  • You should here that the saxophone is alto and tenor, as is written in the lead and the source can be found from credits and personnel
  • Remove release year for A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships
  • "over video chat."" → "over video chat"."

Critical reception edit

  • Img looks good!
  • "favourably comparing it to" → "favourably comparing the song to"
  • Remove or replace The Edge per WP:RSSM
  • "called the single" → "called the song"
  • "without it tiring."" → "without it tiring"."
  • Remove or replace RedBrick per WP:RSSM
  • "and metaphorically compared it" → "and metaphorically compared the song"
  • Wikilink [[lightning rod]
  • "from the heavens."" → "from the heavens"."
  • "they wish to."" → "they wish to"."
  • "the single was emblematic" → "the song is emblematic"
  • "micro-genre", and" → "micro-genre" and"
  • "Ross Horton of MusicOMH said the song was" → "Ross Horton of musicOMH said the song is"
  • "calling it "the record's" → "calling the song "the record's"
  • "charmingly sleazy hook."" → "charmingly sleazy hook"."
  • "wrote it was:" → "wrote it is:"
  • "In a favourable review," → "In another favourable review," because otherwise, it sounds like this is coming after mixed/negative ones
  • "was the only track" → "is the only track"
  • "commenting that it placed" → "commenting that the song places"
  • "of a John Hughes film." → "of a Hughes film."
  • Img looks good!
  • "remarked that it:" → "remarked that the song"
  • The release years added in brackets aren't included in the quoted text; either add with [] or alter prose to take the songs and artists out of the quote
  • [combined] → [combines]
  • "radio-friendly hooks."" → "radio-friendly hooks"."
  • "called it" → "called the track"
  • Remove release year of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"
  • "erotic Zoom call."" → "erotic Zoom call"."
  • "saxophones, and "saucy"" → "saxophones and "saucy""
  • "the insatiable jam."" → "the insatiable jam"."
  • "of Tears For Fear" → "of Tears For Fears"
  • "that it represented the band" → "that it represents the band"
  • "The Cure, and the music of John Hughes" → "the Cure and the music of Hughes"

Year-end lists edit

  • Shouldn't you mention the names of the lists; see "Clique" for example? Especially since a number of these are unranked.
  • Edwin Ortiz (Complex) → Edwin Ortiz (Complex) with the target per MOS:LINK2SECT

Music video edit

  • Remove target on directed
  • Remove target on producer
  • Remove target on edited
  • [60] should be at the end of the "Visually simplistic," sentence, as it is only invoked once currently in this para
  • "It is shot in" → "The video is shot in"
  • "yet effective approach."" → "yet effective approach"."

Commercial performance edit

  • Create this section because not only did the song chart in numerous countries, but you have written about this in the lead

Credits and personnel edit

  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between credits and personnel
  • Composers should be first, followed by producer, followed by backing vocalist, then instrumental contributors and end with mixer

Charts edit

  • Use col to separate weekly and year-end charts

Weekly charts edit

  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Year-end charts edit

  • See MOS:TABLECAPTION

References edit

  • Copyvio score looks too high at 59.2%; try to fix this by cutting down on the quoting from the Atwood Magazine ref, but the instances where it is merely the title being flagged under copyvio should be ignored
  • Took a look at this and it isn't from the quote, lol. I didn't realize, but Atwood has all the lyrics displayed in the article. Giacobbe talk 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • (CA)Giacobbe Are you sure you don't need to reduce the lyrics quoting from the Billboard ref? --K. Peake 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, pretty much had to remove the entire intro line to get the score to 44%. Nonetheless it's   Done Giacobbe talk 19:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • Silly question but how do I go about this? Giacobbe talk 18:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove or replace refs 13 and 18 per WP:RSSM
  • Remove the author from ref 23, as staff shouldn't be cited in that parameter
  • Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 25, 30, 36, 37 AND 60
  • Remove target on Pitchfork for ref 34
  • Cite Complex as website instead for ref 57 and target to Complex (magazine) per MOS:LINK2SECT

External links edit

  • Good

Final comments and verdict edit

  •   On hold until all of the issues are fixed, but the most noticeable one throughout was American English being used even though English is the performer's nationality. --K. Peake 14:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kyle Peake: I believe I've addressed all of your concerns and made the necessary changes. Thank you for taking the time to review this article for me, I genuinely appreciate it. You rock. Cheers! Giacobbe talk 18:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • (CA)Giacobbe It is amazing to hear you are so satisfied with this review, but you still need to address the comments I made regarding the references and edit out mentions of the song's title where I said to in the lead. --K. Peake 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kyle Peake: Sorry, must have missed those two in the lead. Copyvio score now at 44%. I can't archive the references, it gives me an error message: "Analysis error: blocked: You have been blocked from editing". Giacobbe talk 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @(CA)Giacobbe: That has happened to me before, it is not a user specific thing; the issue only arises when the tool is not working temporarily.  Pass nevertheless, as the sources can be archived days from now hopefully or however long it takes for the tool to fix! --K. Peake 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kyle Peake: Ahh okay. No worries, I'll try again later tonight. Fingers crossed. Thank you for your (very) speedy review. Top notch work. Cheers! Giacobbe talk 19:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • @(CA)Giacobbe: Yeah you try that, if not successful then give it a few days before another attempt. Also, I would like to issue a big thanks to you for working as well as clockwork in your response!!! --K. Peake 19:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply