Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/I Need You (Paris Hilton song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

I Need You (Paris Hilton song) edit

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

This article is about a song recorded by American socialite Paris Hilton, which was released as a digital download on February 14, 2018, (Valentine's Day). It is a a doo-wop and pop ballad that features holiday-related puns about love. It is incredibly cheesy and I love it for that very reason. I am a romantic sap who loves pop music so this is very much made for me.

I worked on this article back in 2018, and I am currently debating on bringing it to the FAC level. However, I wanted to bring this article through the peer review process first as it has been some time since I had actively worked on it and I wanted to make sure it is fully prepared for a FAC if I decided to go down that route. I think this would be a very cute TFA for Valentine's Day. I hope everyone is doing well and thank you in advance for any comments! Aoba47 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Can't see any reason for the comma after 2018 in the first sentence
  • "as a dedicate to her fiancée" - I don't think "dedicate" is a noun. Maybe "dedication"?
  • That is an embarrassing typo lol. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Dance Club Songs Billboard chart" - I'd phrase this as "the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart"
  • "three minutes and 35-seconds" - don't think there should be a hyphen in 35 seconds
  • "I wanna put the happy in your Birthday" - don't think birthday should have a capital, it's not a proper noun
  • "It was included Vulture.com's list" - word "in" missing
  • "She explained Marilyn Monroe" => "She explained that Marilyn Monroe"
  • "They were released [...] while Hector Fonseca and Zambianco posted it" - seems to be a plural/singular disagreement here
  • Thank you for the help! It has been a while since I have thoroughly looked through this article so I was a little nervous it would be in much worse shape. I believe that I have addressed everything, but feel free to add any more suggestions if you see or think of anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

Placeholder. Comments soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second and third paragraph of the lead could perhaps be interchanged, although not a standard rule, most song article FAs I have read provide context on the writers/producers first, before the record label and release information.
  • Michael Green produced "I Need You" and co-wrote it with Hilton and Simon Wilcox. -- this is a follow-up to above (if applied), Michael Green produced the song and co-wrote it with Hilton and Simon Wilcox.
  • I think we can probably omit the mention of "Valentines Day" in the lead. We generally try to avoid the parenthetical as it can be sometimes informal or awkward. And since readers in general can identify with the significance of the date, plus it is also mentioned in the body.
  • "I Need You" was praised by critics, partially for Hilton's decision -- partly for Hilton's decision
  • It peaked at number 31 on the Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, Hilton's fifth appearance on it. -- Perhaps change the first "It" to "The single" since the second instance of "it" refers to the song chart, to avoid confusion.
  • were made to promote the track. -- were released to promote the track
  • For the music video description, I'm suggesting we merge the two sentences -- e.g. Inspired by Marilyn Monroe's performance of "I Wanna Be Loved by You" and Jessica Rabbit, the music video features Hilton in a lingerie, posing in a bed covered with red rose petals, and popping out of a cake.
  • Thank you for fixing my revision to this one! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentators described -- Although this is a variation I believe, perhaps "critics" would be more appropriate
  • Heiress released it as a digital download on -- Heiress Records digitally released it on... (i think we can unlink Heiress Records as it redirects to Hilton's main article)
  • and her first ballad. -- perhaps we can be specific to what the ballad single was
  • This is Hilton's first ballad so I have changed the order to hopefully prevent confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cried on hearing it. -- He cried upon hearing it
  • It was included in Vulture.com's -- I think Vulture.com should be in italics
  • Hilton Dresden wrote the single reflected -- Dresden only on the second instance
  • While I understand your rationale for this suggestion, I will push back slightly. I prefer to use a critic's full name when it is brought up in a different section to avoid any potential confusion for readers who may not remember that individual from a previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Love Michael viewed it -- same as above
  • See my response to the Dresden point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Bruner on the second instance
  • See my response to the Dresden point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For another scene, she appears -- In another scene...

That's all I have. Believe this is a solid article and will eventually be FAC-ready post PR. Hopefully my comments are helpful. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the very helpful review. You have helped to improve the article immensely and I have very appreciative of that. I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ edit

Love to see an article about a doo-wop song being improved! I will have some comments up very soon.--NØ 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first descriptor on Hilton's bio seems to be "media personality", so is there a reason introducing her as a socialite is more apt here?
  • I think both would be applicable and I do not see a strong reason to favor one over the other. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present wording works too!--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the wording in the opening sentence be "song recorded by" instead of "song by"? Nitpicky but I thought of this as socialite does not imply a musical role.
  • That is fair and I have added that to the lead. I also found the "song recorded by" to be unnecessarily wordy, but I understand the importance in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably the Dance Club Songs part in both the lead and body should be re-worded to make it clear that Billboard is not part of the chart name, as WP:USCHARTS seems pretty serious about this.
  • Removed. Thank you for the link to the policy regarding this information. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and said she wrote the lyrics in "a few hours" - She can probably be relied upon for the accuracy of this information so it can just be mentioned as a fact rather than something she claimed.
  • Should be "Heiress Records" instead of "Heiress" on first mention
  • What I meant was the first mention of "Heiress" in the body should be "Heiress Records" instead, but really not a big deal either way.--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree with your suggestion since I think it would be important to clarify that this is a record label in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to go to different links for "ballad" in the lead and body
  • I don't think it has?--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for that. I somehow missed this one. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's usage of both "dance-orientated" and "dance-oriented" so I'm curious if there's any significant difference in the meaning or this could be made consistent.
  • The genre stuff as it is currently included seems to be a bit confusing. The infobox, lead and intro sentence of "Music and lyrics" introduce pop as one of the song's genres, but the sample mentions only doo-wop as the genre and states it is a "departure from Hilton's previous pop [...] releases".
  • I removed this part and used Hilton's full quote in which she contrasts this song with her other music. While I understand why she differentiates this from her EDM/dance work, I do not agree that this is so different than her pop work as I could see this song fitting on her album. I had a Cosmopolitan citation, which further discussed the difference between this song and her past pop music, but I had removed that one per your suggestion below. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does say "critics found it to be a departure from Hilton's previous pop and dance-oriented releases", so is it possible to point a reference to secondary critics describing Hilton's previous releases as such? If Cosmopolitan was the only source I guess that part will have to be edited out as it no longer appears in the body.--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. For some reason, I forgot that I had mentioned this in the lead so I have now removed that part as well. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional but maybe the lyrical quotes could be paraphrased a bit.
  • I think I will keep that for now and see how other reviewers respond, but I appreciate the note. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works for me!--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2018 Best Songs of the Week" - Odd that they used both the year and "week" in the playlist's title.
  • I do not see that in the citation. Could you point that out to me? Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of the Spotify playlist from this source is confusing, but there's probably nothing we can do to clarify this.--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I was looking at the wrong Vulture.com article. It is strange, but I do not think there's anything we can really do about it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it is a bit excessive to name all of her songs that have charted on Dance Club Songs given the scope of this article? I think mentioning that it was her fifth appearance is perfectly fine though.
  • "Account" could be omitted the second time to reduce repetition of "YouTube account" in the music video section.
  • Sorry for bringing up the sources as I know PRs are usually more focused on prose, but I had doubts about the reliability of a few of these. The infobox on Life & Style (magazine) states it is a gossip magazine, so do you think it would be fine at FAC? Bustle and Cosmopolitan seem to raise some red flags per WP:RSPSS as well. I don't have much familiarity with Refinery29. And while Vogue Australia is definitely reliable in a general sense, can the reliability be justified for musical commentary? These types of things are probably better dealt with here than some brutal source review at the FAC.--NØ 09:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to apologize. It is important to get all of this figured out during the peer review process so the transition to the FAC space can go as smoothly as possible. I have removed Life & Style and Cosmopolitan as they are not high-quality citations. I was less certain about Bustle, but I did remove it as well because that citation was not adding a lot to the article anyway so it is best to avoid questionable sources. I'd say Refinery29 should be okay, but I am more than willing to revisit it as it is only used in the article in one sentence. I understand your concern about Vogue Australia, but I think it should be reliable since it is mostly used to discuss the fashion in the music video. I'd be okay with removing the Vogue Australia bit from the "Reception" section to clarify that this would only be used in the context of discussing fashion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing this for me. I think the article will have a much smoother sail at FAC now with hopefully a lenient source reviewer.--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate it and let me know if there is anything else I can do to further improve the article. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are most welcome! I will make sure to give it another read when it's at FAC but most probably it should be good to go after my replies above are addressed.--NØ 16:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help! I just thought it would be fun to try and bring this article through the FAC process. As I have said above, I have not looked at this article in-depth since 2018 and instead of just rewriting it completely, I decided to bring it to the peer review space. I will let you know when I nominate it for a FAC. It will likely be in either late August or early September as I should leave this up for a while longer to get as much commentary as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor edit

  • "Heiress Recorids"? Shouldn't that be "Heiress Records"?
  • That was an embarrassing typo. Thank you for pointing it out and I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dedication to her fiancée" should be followed with a comma?
  • I do not think the comma is necessary, but I am by no means an expert on this subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can refer to "Vulture.com" as just Vulture.

Otherwise, I think this looks good! Well done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAC peer review sidebar edit

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Marking my spot. FrB.TG (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hilton previewed the song for Zylka" - Hilton previewed the song by herself for Zylka's sake or Hilton showed a preview of the song to Zylka?
  • I believe it was the second case. Here is the sentence from the citation: Hilton says she played the song for her fiancée on a car ride home from the studio, and it made him emotional. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to better convey this information in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "Hilton played a preview of the song for Zylka” or "Hilton played the song for Zylka"? FrB.TG (talk)
  • Revised with the second suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Love Michael" - interesting name
  • It is certainly a unique name (if it is his real name). Almost as good as Hilton Dresden's name. Having two different Hiltons in the article is interesting to say the least lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hilton felt 'more comfortable' with Zylka as the director." Any particular reason why? I assume it was because he's her fiancee?
  • I have expanded on this point with a quote from the citation. Hilton is not super specific about it, but she did say she'd rather have Zylka direct it than "some stranger" so I believe your suggestion is correct. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid using New York Post, which is simply an awful source.
  • Agreed and removed. It was only being used to support a single sentence about how this song was Hilton's Valentine's Day present to Zylka and that is already obvious by context anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. FrB.TG (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your help with everything. I believe that I have addressed everything and let responses above. Please let me know if there is any way that I could clarify the preview part in the article. Once everything is done, I think I will take this to the FAC space next week since this peer review has already attracted several reviewers (and I am very grateful for that) and I do not want to take away attention from peer reviews who are looking for participation. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. This looks FAC-ready to me. FrB.TG (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tunestoons edit

Hello! I can only do a cursory glance but I did notice just one small thing -- the Paris Hilton photo seems to have been taken in 2021 (as opposed to the "pictured in 2022" part in your caption). Also, I've seen other FAs write "Times's" (in the "reception" part with "Gay Times") instead of "Times'", so I just wanted to point that out as well? Hope this helps a bit! Thanks for writing and contributing another great piece about music and pop culture! :) Tunestoons (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tunestoons: Thank you for the very kind words and helpful comments. I have adjusted the image caption. For whatever reason, I thought it was 2022 so apologies for that. I have added the extra s to Times's. I always thought it looks weird myself and I believe it is a matter of personal preference as both are grammatically correct, but I do not have any issue with compromising on that. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/I_Need_You_(Paris_Hilton_song)/archive1&oldid=1102697465"