Talk:Strawberry Bubblegum

Lists in Infobox

The repeated removal of templates that deliver prosper list mark-up is unfortunate. By using them the list of writers, the listof producers and others are rendered using the correct list mark-up in the rendered page's HTML, in accordance with the HTML specifications to which we are supposed to work; and with WP:LIST; and as commonly done across Wikipedia. The claim that these are not lists is erroneous, and false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This has again been reverted, with an edit summary of "WP:LIST makes no mention of how to list things in an infobox, such as writers. ". That is bunkum. As I have also pointed out elsewhere, WP:UBLIST, is a subsection of WP:LIST, and part of WP:MOS. It says "For lists of... items, without bullets (for example in infobox fields, or to replace lists separated with <br />), {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}} should be used. This emits the correct HTML markup...". I would also remind fellow editors that they should discuss disputes on talk pages, as I attempted here on 4 April, and via my edit summary today (both with no reply); and not merely edit war. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strawberry Bubblegum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 10:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright. You've probably noticed I started marking this up a bit.

There's a few issues, minor ones, like "primarily and Timberlake's friends", which is either missing a word, or has an extra one, and one potentially major one.

Now, these sort of articles always end up sounding a little disjointed by necessity. You're pulling together the drips and drabs of information from multiple sources to try and make a coherent whole. That's normal. And bits of it will have a lot of quotes.

The problem is... you got a little too close even outside the quotes. Compare:

This article	Quote from source	Acceptable?
The song opens with a needle-on-record sound, which channels, according to Gregory Hicks of The Michigan Daily, a trademark of Christina Aguilera's fifth studio album Back to Basics (2006).[	The time-honored needle-on-record sound effect introduces “Strawberry Bubblegum,” channeling a trademark of Christina Aguilera’s Back to Basics.	Mostly. maybe don't use "channels"?
A deep, Barry White-esque voice says, "Hey, pretty lady" while Timberlake sings "This goes out to you!". Allan Raible of ABC News wrote that "such a move seems engineered to make gullible teen girls in the audience scream."	“Strawberry Bubblegum” begins with a deep, Barry White-esque voice saying, “Hey… pretty lady…” while Timberlake sings “This goes out to you!” Such a move seems engineered to make gullible teen girls in the audience scream.	No. It's really close even outside of the quotes.
The composition of the song features "immature giggle-inducing double-entendres", spoken word backing sections and according to David Meller of MusicOMH it shifts into "’70s funk-cum-porno keyboards makes it difficult to dislike, although many will likely scoff."	...rife with immature giggle-inducing double-entendres ([...]), Barry White-esque spoken word backing sections and shifts into appropriate ’70s funk-cum-porno keyboards makes it difficult to dislike, although many will likely scoff.	No, that's too close.
The string loop and the added record scratchiness on the song complete "the faux-vintage" vibe that coats "Straberry Bubblegum". Raible concluded that "with its ethereal, soft tone, the track wants to be Jackson's 'Butterflies'.	The dusty string loop and the added record scratchiness on the track fit the faux-vintage vibe that coats this record. With its ethereal, soft tone, the track wants to be Jackson’s “Butterflies”	Again, very close.

And so on. If it's not in quotes, it needs to be vastly different than this. Also, your phrasing conceals the source of the first half of quotes. For instance, if you write "and according to David Meller of MusicOMH it shifts into", that implies that the bit before that is not by David Mellar, but, in fact, it is. (also, comma before according and after MusicOMH.)

I'm really sorry, but the whole section is going to need completely rewritten, and, as such, I'm afraid this probably fails. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I got a second opinion, and I'm afraid the article fails for now, though hopefully it will pass in the future. Good luck! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strawberry Bubblegum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 23:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll take this one, but I notice a problem. I really don't see the need for a "Background and production", since this basically talks about the development of the entire album (which we can let the 20/20 experience article discuss), and we could let the people who did there jobs and the locations just simply be listed in the personnel section without the need of this being discussed in prose in another section. 和DITOREtails 23:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Review
Comment	Date	Checklist
There needs to be author information for refs 6, 9, 13, 16, 23, 28, and 29.	01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
What the hell's up with the author info for ref 26? "Sean Daly, Times Pop Music Critic View all Articles" Should "Sean Daily" be the author presented?	01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
Date for ref 2 needs to be put	01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
In ref 11, try replacing the "(" ")" with "[" "]" to make it look clearer.	01:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
In ref 27, "Kitty Empire" --> "Empire, Kitty"	13:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
And also, author needed for ref 30.	13:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)	Done
I'm still questioning the "Writing and production" section of this article. Again, listing the people involved in making this song in the "Personnel" section is just fine, and "Writing and production" sections are not requirments for a good article.	17:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Overall, the article looks fine to me and I'll be happy to pass it.

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.