Talk:Woohoo (Christina Aguilera song)/GA2

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.

---

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

Reviewer: ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see too many problems here. None really at all. Great job you've done here Candy. The only concern I have is the "Release history". I know there's only two things here, but if you could separate them like Ego's that would be great. Also, there are two dablinks. You need to fix those. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed one dab, another dab appears on the page because Woo Hoo has other uses. And could you see my comments about release histories in Falling Down :) Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, haha. I understand that. I'm pretty sure I wrote this before you told me about it. I will go through the article soon. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 20:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is kind of a mess how it's written. Maybe I suggest something more on the lines of...

NOTE: This is just a suggestion.

"Woohoo" is a song recorded by American recording artist Christina Aguilera featuring rapper Nicki Minaj. The song was written by Aguilera, Minaj, Claude Kelly, Ester Dean, and Polow da Don, and produced by Polow da Don, for Aguilera's sixth studio album, Bionic. The song was released as a promotional single on May 18, 2010, and later was serviced to rhythmic airplay as the album's second single on May 25, 2010. The song has been described as an electronica-driven urban dancehall track with R&B and hip hop influences. The song lyrically speaks of cunnilingus.

Bold is an important part to change, as it is her sixth album.
Italic could you expand on that?

• Maybe add some more information to the second paragraph, I don't think the lead meets the standards.

Most  Done. I tried to do what I could and add a bit more, but the lead really summarized everything, it looked slight because the single had no promo. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

• Unlink Christina Aguilera in the writers section, as well as Onika Maraj.

 Done

• Also, the recorded section looks a bit funny, is it positioned oddly or something? Could you possibly find year of recorded?

 Done, it was an extra line break. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition

• I don't like how it's worded. Maybe re-organize the facts a bit. Some of them are kinda like "quote bombs" if you know what I mean. Not very flowing.

Well I don't know how to flow it better. I also don't know what "quote bombs" are lol. There aren't even quotes pulled only a few terms that reviewers used... Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Saying co-written isn't necessary, just saying written is fine.

 Done

• Have Polow's link to his legal name. Also note he produced it?

If the article's name were Jamal Jones, then it would be different, but it is unnecessary to have it link his legal name when his Wikipedia page to it, because it would just be a redirect. Now in this situation his legal name would be linked to Polow da Don. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

• I may be wrong, but shouldn't there be a semi-colon instead of a comma in the first sentence?

No. In a semi-colon, it should be two complete thoughts on both sides, and it should be able to be broken a part. Praising Minaj's appearance in the song and commending Aguilera's vocals --> is not complete

Chart performance

• "In its initial week" Maybe, "In its first week of release". Some may not understand what exactly that means.

Initial is first, shouldn't be that hard. Trying to switch it up so music articles won't be so repetitive. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The song was Aguilera's fifteenth straight single to hit both the charts, widening her streak of having all singles chart on the Billboard"
  • Change was to became.

 Done

• • Remove "the".

 Done

• • Semi-colon instead of comma?

No, read comment above about the usage of a semi-colon.

• • Billboard what?

 Done

• "The song also charted at number 148 on the UK Singles Chart from digital sales after the release of "Bionic"."
  • "...sales following the release of Bionic."

It didn't chart from physical sales, so digital sales, it is what it is. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Live performance

• I don't think a comma is needed before ", at the 2010 MTV Movie Awards".

It's needed to mirror the first part of the sentence. The part between the comma's is a different thought and if removed, the sentence could still read proper, which indicates a comma use. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

• I don't like how the ref is. Please reformat it as it was done on "So Yesterday". (Just click on edit to see code.)

 Done

Second look through

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. It's been pretty busy, with exams coming up. I'll take another skim through the article. ℥^nding·start 05:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• Bionic --> italic.

 Done

• Sampling the 1972 song, "Add már uram az esőt" by Kati Kovács, "Woohoo" lyrically speaks of cunnilingus, and has been compared to Kelis's "Milkshake" (2003) --> I don't like this sentence, it gives too much information at once.

 Done I kept the sampling and the lyrical content together, but moved the similarities to Milkshake a couple sentences down. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition

• Maybe you could expand on this, and add information about it being released? Kind of make it into a background and composition, just to add a bit more to it.

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• It --> What's "it"?

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hip-hop --> hip hop

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Aguilera's vocals are distorted in parts. --> Random fact, maybe add it to something, it just seems like it's coming out of nowhere.
• It --> Again

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Lyrically, the song is about oral sex. --> Kind of just a random fact like what I said before, try elaborating on it.

Critical reception

• Shouldn't Christina be mentioned first, as it is her song?

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Link Hollaback Girl.

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance

• initial week --> first week of release

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• widening her streak of having all singles chart on the Billboard Hot 100 --> What?

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Bionic" --> Bionic

 Done --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 20:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no more problems. :) Maybe you should add a track listing section, even though there was only a digital release, it would help fill up the article. ℥^nding·start 06:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OMG THANKS CPRICE! :D Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops after Cprice's barnstar I thought everything was doneee. Haha, but anyway a track listing can't be added because the single can no longer be pulled up on iTunes to source it (-__-), and it was not released on Amazon. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, let me go take out the track listing I just added. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 00:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the ref in the release history not be directed there as well? ℥^nding·start 03:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Release History ref go where? --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Did it fail? I haven't heard anything... --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 23:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No it hasn't failed. Exams. And the release history ref #23 directs to an iTunes link that just goes to the album. ℥^nding·start 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Passing By

Since it seems like Ending-start is out of time coz of his school, anybody wants me to take up the review? There are so many major MOS being ignored here. Sigh... — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been rather busy. I agree, I see some things looking through it again. Candy, Cprice, please take a look at Hello Good Morning's infobox, and reconstruct this one after it. I will go through the article once more tomorrow afternoon after my exam. I'm sorry for taking so long. You all know what exams are like. ℥^nding·start 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That did not answer my question. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be doing it after my exam this morning. ℥^nding·start 12:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Final look through

Sorry again for taking so long to get back to this.

• As I said above, please look at Hello Good Morning and reconstruct the infobox to look like it. And no, it's not a necessity, but it looks better.

I don't see what's presented in Hello Good Morning that is better and/or different.

• I don't like how this line "It features Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj." is just there. Maybe try something like what 4 Minutes (Madonna song) has. "The song features a rap verse from Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj." or something like that. And move it around a bit. It doesn't have to be in the first part.

It's kind of hard to be flexible with the line in that Minaj's name comes up in the sentence about the writing and her featuring in the song would need to be stated first to see why she gets writing credits.

• Credit their legal names in the lead. Example: Minaj --> Onika Maraj, Polow da Don --> Jamal Jones, or Jamal "Polow da Don" Jones.

Legal names are generally not credited in the lead, rather (i.e. Timbaland in 4 Minutes (Madonna song)).

• "Sampling the 1972 song, "Add már uram az esőt" by Kati Kovács, "Woohoo" lyrically speaks of cunnilingus." --> reword.

Not trying to be difficult or anything, but the it is a readable, compound sentence, and has been rewritten twice. What could be changed?

• Honestly, looking at it, the whole lead needs some major editing. I'd help do it myself, but I don't think I'm allowed to.

In copyediting this lead +4 times, could you please point out any specifics?

• In the composition and background section, there isn't much background info at all, and no sources for any of it. Expand on it, or remove it.

I'm confused...remove the background information that is present because there is not enough?

• "Woohoo"'s --> that looks so messy. Just say the song's.

 Done

• Lyrically, the song is about oral sex. --> More detail; don't just stick that there and not describe the lyrics any more.

That's all the insight sources provide into the lyrical content.

• I saw the post about the release history on the talk page, add the other dates. Ref 23 goes to the Bionic album on iTunes, no source for the May 18th date anywhere there. Find another one, or use one of the others that were found. ℥^nding·start 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well as you should know, iTunes removes any records of a single's release after an album is released. A while back someone removed the release and Lil-unique suggested to add it that source in the release history. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed up a few parts myself, that I couldn't really explain right myself. What I meant with the background part is because it only says a couple of lines, you should expand on that, or remove it. I've removed it, as it's already stated in the lead. I'm passing the article. (FINALLY, IKR?) I'm sorry again for it taking so long to do. Exams stink. ℥^nding·start 08:39, 30 January 2011 (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.