Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [1].

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song) edit

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've fixed the article up as much as I can (transforming it from this version to the current version). I believe it is well written and comprehensive. Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tbhotch

This is the first part of my review, have fun Novice :) Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox
wearing a purple sweater and short... -> wearing a purple sweater and a short
around her shoulder -> which shoulder? or maybe you intended to say shoulders
To the right of the picture, the words "Jessica Simpson" and "Irresistible" are written. -> How they are written?
Recorded: Murlyn Studios in Stockholm, Sony Music Studios in New York City -> recorded when?
Fixed
  • Lead
for Simpson's second studio album, also entitled Irresistible (2001). -> It can be re-worded
Year-end charts -> year-end charts
had a James Bond theme -> link it
Fixed
  • Background
Stockholm; Sony Music Studios -> link them
Columbia Records released "Irresistible" on May 29, 2001 -> and there were not more release dates worldwide?
Fixed first issue. For the second, yes, there are release dates. But, I didn't include them as I though they might become redundant.
You can include where it was released on May 29. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition
94 beats per minute -> consistency with the numbers
F3 to the high note of E5 ... D2 to the note of E5 -> link them
shouldn’t -> You know
famous virginity intact -> BLP issue
version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack -> link it
The version featured on Lizzie McGuire Soundtrack has altered lyrics -> the version featured on the soundtrack has altered itself or someone altered it?
Fixed most. Added a citation for the virginity thing, and changed the soundtrack lyrics mention.
  • Remixes
remixes from So So Def Recordings, Hex Hector, and others. -> Who others?
Dupri also appears on the remix video -> This is mentioned because...
Fixed first. For second, now that I've read it again, I feel it makes no sense as Dupri's presence is mentioned in the next sentence. Shall I remove it?
Yip, very redundant. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
Change the name of the header since is is part of the "Reception" section
BBC -> link it
"Irresistible" won a BMI Music Award -> in which category
  • Commercial reception
Commercial reception -> as above
Although in New Zealand, the single debuted at number forty-five and dropped to number fifty the subsequent week,[31] it eventually peaked at number forty-one.[31] -> need a copy-edit, including when it reached its peak. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The song also" is mentioned five times, this needs to be fixed
Fixed most from both. Okay, so shall I merge the two individual receptions into one? – Novice7 (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is on option, or the second is search synonyms such as "Commercial response" or "Critical reaction", or something like that. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. – Novice7 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video
It begins with a helicopter -> Is not "an helicopter"?
MTV's Total Request Live countdown -> MTV's Total Request Live (TRL) countdown
Fixed
  • Live performance
setlist -> link it
song on MTV's TRL Tour -> unlink it
On June 4 -> year (I assume 2001 thanks to the next date)
Cancun -> grammar, Cancún
She appeared on an episode of MuchMusic in Canada on June 11 -> June 16 was previously mentioned, should this not go in chronological order?
She also performed the song at Monkey Club Paris -> in Paris, Texas or in France?
Fixed. Oops! I may have misplaced the MuchMusic performance. Corrected it, and it is in France.
  • Refereces
Ref 3, could you be more specific? The {{Cite album-notes}} has 17 fields and you are using very few of them
Ref 5, who wrote the article
Ref 11, David Manship -> Capital City Press
Ref 16, as ref 3
Ref 22, Daily News. -> Daily News. Heartland Publications.
ref 29, consistency needed with the publisher
Ref 41, as ref 3
Ref 59, IMDb is not a reliable source
Refs 62-66, as ref 3
According to WorldCat, the ISBN of Today's Superstar Entertainment: Jessica Simpson is wrong
Fixed, I guess. As for the liner notes, I could not add much, as the album has a fold out booklet, and has no page numbers printed. Similarly, for the remix ep. The release notes also suffer from almost the same issue, as the singles do not have any booklets (the information is printed on the back cover).

Those are all my comments off this article, good luck. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 07:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments. – Novice7 (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If I am able to say support, I do. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! – Novice7 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release date given in the infobox is unreferenced and original research. If the Australian release date reference is used it is generalizing from one countries information to apparently global claims via original research. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made another version of the article. I don't know if I can move it to mainspace. I have referenced the release dates on that version. It is currently in my sandbox. Thanks for the comment. – Novice7 (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is an improvement to write it in prose. However, the reference your using doesn't say anything about release in Australia. Also the Australian chart site already used in the article lists the single as being at the later date of 25/06/2001. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the source. I checked the chart site. It shows the same release date for many countries, while Amazon shows different ones. – Novice7 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but my original observations still stand. In addition what makes Amazon.fr with it's information pertaining to only one specific retailer a high-quality reliable source for a release date in France? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on all possible online stores, and could not find anything regarding the single release. I even tried Sony Music France's website and its archive using Web Archive. I used Amazon.fr, as the release date published there corresponds to original release date in that region. Proposal: Maybe I can mention the US release date (as I found a Record label source for it) and mention it in the lead and infobox. I can add mention it was released in the US, in the infobox. – Novice7 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you seem to be saying you can't source the information in the article. How about removing all the release information entirely. Especially the one in the infobox? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a label source. And, of course, Amazon. Also, {{Infobox single}} says "the earliest known date". That's why I added May 29. I don't know if I am allowed to remove release dates. – Novice7 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the label source in the article? The release date has only the amazon.fr reference used. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the US vinyl release. Here's the link [2]. 14:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have the time to follow this up at the moment. Feel free to ignore my coments. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the layout and style of the article. – Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: the new images need ALT for consistency. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay now? – Novice7 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good, with a few exceptions.
  • The lyrics are more mature and suggestive than those Simpson's in previous songs. - those /of/ Simpson's, maybe?
  • "I think you're going to see a new side of Jessica Simpson," she explained to Associated Press.[5] - Explained? Is there a better word to use?
  • The song features a string section[20] by Stockholm Session Strings.[4] - Might be better as, "The song features string instruments played by etc.".
  • Irresistible" was received with mixed reviews by critics. - You said in the lead that it was met with mixed to negative reviews, can we make this consistent?
  • Teresa Gubbins of The Dallas Morning News was mixed in her review, writing that the "song's sound may help get [Ms.] Simpson on urban radio but it does nothing to showcase her voice." - maybe better as "had mixed feelings in her review"
  • Her performance was commended by The Richmond Times, who wrote that her voice "soared,"[69] but reproved by Andrea Kibler of The Buffalo News, who felt Simpson was lip-syncing the whole song.[70] - Can a person feel that someone is lip-synching? May be better as opined or expressed that she thought Simpson was...

Great work. ceranthor 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. (Please note that I had asked Ceranthor if he could check the article out. I tried my best not to canvass.) – Novice7 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Media

  • "It also incorporates hooks." - source?
  • "Simpson performing on the United Service Organization's Celebrity tour" - what is this?
  • No issues with the images themselves - fair-use images have appropriate rationales, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed both. For the first one, it was actually a mistake. I corrected the description. As for the second, added "the song". — Novice7 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "from her second studio album of the same name." I know this is majorly picky, but this could be read that she had two studio albums of the same name.
  • "It was first released on ..." could relate to the album, since that's what you last spoke about.
  • "came up with the title" a little colloquial reading for me.
  • "inter-cut with Simpson's. Simpson performed " could you not say "She performed" as it's clear you're talking about Simpson here.
  • I would think it more useful to link Disney Channel Original than to link music video.
  • I would avoid using ASCAP as an abbreviation before you use it expanded.
  • Songs for Hall & Oates? really?!
  • "they wrote the song from scratch" - reiterate "Irresistible" rather than "the song".
  • "with a couple of" a little colloquial for me.
  • C Major -> C major.
  • "double-punch" - I have no idea if this is good, bad or indifferent!
  • "of BBC gave" we usually say "the BBC".
  • Last sentences of Music video section are unreferenced.
  • Is "skimpy" encyclopedic?
  • Reality Tour or "Reality Tour", be consistent with the quote marks.
  • No need to link Paris.
  • "Riprock 'N' Alex G Remix " vs "Riprock N' Alex G Remix" - consistent apostrophes please.
  • Weekly charts table, ultratip should come before ultratop, I assume you're ordering them alphabetically to start with..?
  • Yearly Charts->Yearly charts.
  • Refs 90 to 100 (bar a couple) need to use en-dash per WP:DASH, not spaced hyphens.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambling Man! I fixed most of the issues.
  • Yes, the source says "songs for Hall & Oates.."
  • Allmusic review seems positive as it says none of the other songs, except the mentioned ones, register as songs.
  • I added a ref. for music video.
  • I linked Paris as there is Paris, Texas and Paris, France.
  • I would expect no-one to confuse Paris with the one in Texas, but there you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I sorted it alphabetically. I can move Tip up if you want me to :)
  • The refs from 90 to 100 are created by {{singlechart}}. I don't know how to fix it :(

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • Ref 100: Should has a language parameter; it is mostly in German.
    • Ref 42 and 43: I think too; mostly in German.
    • Ref 49 and 50: Connection refused.
    • Ref 54: Media type text/html is wrong for .pdf files.
    • Ref 59: node name or service name not known.
    • Ref 30: How's that there are two publishers? I would pick the one between brackets.
    • Ref 32: "publisher=[[Knight Ridder]]/[[Tribune Company" — forgot two square brackets.
    • Ref 6: "publisher=Amazon.com" — publisher is "Amazon Inc."
    • Why you italicize works? Explain.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GreatOrangePumpkin
  • As I wrote earlier, they're made by Singlechart template. I don't know how to fix them.
  • My fault. I usually never look above comments.
  • It's okay :)
  • 42 and 43 are Billboard sources.
  • You are right, but the language of the website is German.
  • It shows up as English to me. Maybe it is region-specific? — Novice7 (talk)
  • Extremely strange. Yesterday it was in German D:. How's that? Maybe I accidently translated the article with Google Translator, but I don't think I did that without realize something. Firefox is sometimes just crazy, nothing else :/.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a server problem. It's working for me (ref 49 and 50).
  • Seems to be OK now.
  • Can you please explain? I've seen it before too, but don't know what it means.
  • I have no clue what the problem is. You can try someone above; maybe they will fix it. Maybe Checklinks is just plain stupid.
  • Sorry, I couldn't understand.
  • Someone fixed it. The sentence is from Checklinks.
  • Removed. Sorry.
  • It's fixed.
  • It says Amazon Inc.
  • Checklinks is sometimes very strange. It still shows the wrong publisher. However, it is now correct.
  • I italicized work field, because, only print sources should be italicized. But, if work field is left un-italicized, then online sources will also be italicized.
  • Good to know.

— Novice7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! — Novice7 (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm afraid that because of the use of the {{singlechart}} template, ref 97 now has a spam-esque title which has no relevance to the page it's linking, and also the template's main editor has chosen to use a spaced hyphen rather than en-dash. I would advise against using the template if this "title" is what you get for every reference using that website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've changed it. But, I remember hearing that once the template is used, it should not be removed :( —Novice7 (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be the case. The template is just another way of using a {{cite}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I changed the German chart template as you pointed out. I hope the new title is okay. If I may ask, I thought the reference titles should be the same as that of the source? —Novice7 (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation template guidelines are a little more vague, just "Title of online item". This template interprets that as the HTML title, regardless of how useful it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for clarifying. I hope the German chart is okay now? —Novice7 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Novice7 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Irresistible_(Jessica_Simpson_song)/archive1&oldid=1136097059"