Talk:Rude Boy (Rihanna song)/GA2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Reassessment

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

This discussion has been closed and the article has passed GAR.

I've requested GAR for this article because the GAN was passed in haste and without any constructive points to address, apart from 'suggestions that wouldn't affect it's GA status.' I'd like this article to be properly reviewed by an experienced editor who is well acquainted with the GAN Criteria. (For the discussion about the white-wash review, see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, for the GAN review in question, see Talk:Rude Boy (song)/GA1. Thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting... — Legolas (talk2me) 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you start soon? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*February 19, 2010 through --> Always have commas after a full date --> February 19, 2010, through
  •  Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • with production completed by Eriksen and Hermansen (under their production name StarGate) and Swire --> with Eriksen and Hermansen (StarGate), and Swire producing it.
     Done I've re-worded it myself. The reader might not know what "(Stargate)" is. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • which draws heavy influence from dancehall, pop and R&B. --> RB doesnt draw influence per sources... it is influenced by those kind of music.. so rephrase
    ? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Drawing influence and influenced by are two different things. And RB is influenced by dancehall, not drawing it.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "monotone" and "icy" vocal performance. --> Per WP:LEAD, when you quote something, you need to provide source for it.
    Two instances in the Critical reception section of this, with sources. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to add source in lead also, since they are quotes.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rude Boy" was a commercial success internationally ---> Why internationally? That's US-centric usage. For me, who lives in India, the US is international... so remove that phrase.
     Done But, it is still international isn't it, regardless of where it is, it's still a global concern. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    No. International the word is being used wrongly here.
  • and was shot in January 2010 in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. --> Undue again.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Why is greenscreen in quotes?
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Cut the continuous usage of the phrase "The song" and replace with song name sometimes. It appears monotonous.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rude Boy" was released as the third US and second international single ---> Same thing about international
    Well, that's what it is. Changed to worldwide. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • solicited?
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Date corrections
    What do you mean "date corrections"? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    As mentioned before, there sjhould be a comma after full dates.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an interview on Alan Carr: Chatty Man in February 2010, the shows host, Alan Carr asked Rihanna about the songs lyrics, with particular emphasis on the lyrics "Come here Rude Boy, Boy, can you get it up?/Come here Rude Boy, Boy, is you big enough?." ---> Bad English. Try "During an interview on the television show, Alan Carr: Chatty Man in February 2010, the host asked Rihanna about the song's lyrics, with particular emphasis on the line "Come here Rude Boy, Boy, can you get it up?/Come here Rude Boy, Boy, is you big enough?."
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Please correct phrase like "songs information". It should be "song's information". The apostrophe is missing
    I put this in Ctrl+F and it didn't return a result. Did you mean "songs infectious" should be "song's infectious". Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Anywhere you find the word songs, see how it is being used. It should generally be with apostrophe if we are implying that it is the song's.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rihanna explained that "When we wrote the song --> Rihanna explained: "When we wrote the song --> Correct WP:ELLIPSIS in the quote
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • The first line of the second para should be moved above. It is about the background of the song, not its composition.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • That Nick Levine quote is reviewing the song, not talking about its composition. It should be moved to the appropriate section.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • "Rude Boy" was met with generally positively by music critics. --> WP:OR. The subsequent section debunks it.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Replace things like "--" with em-dash
    What is em-dash? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    This is an em-dash "—"
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Billboard review needs to be rephrased. It fails WP:PLAGIARISM.
     Done I removed some of it and broke it up into two sentences. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Same for the subsequent DS review.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • AGain multiple usage of phrase "The song"
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • remained at the number-one position for consecutive five weeks --> correct wording is "five consecutive weeks" not the other way round
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • The song was also certified 2x Platinum denoting sales of over two million copies --> By whom? And certifications are for shipments not sales. See "4 Minutes".
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • The UK trajectory is messy, should be replaced.
    What? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    Rephrase and rearrange the lines. First talk about the UK Singles Chart, then move to genre charts.
  • Same about UK certification
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!

Music video


Lead and infobox

You forgot to mention the genre(s) in the infobox. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't. Click edit on the info box and you will understand. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 09:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"During an interview on the television show, Alan Carr: Chatty Man in February 2010, the host asked Rihanna about the song's lyrics, with particular emphasis on the line "Come here Rude Boy, Boy, can you get it up?/Come here Rude Boy, Boy, is you big enough?"[9] Rihanna explained: "When we wrote the song, it was kind of a freestyle ... I liked the West Indian influence that the music had, and, I just went in the booth, they were already jotting down some ideas and, that came to me, I just ran in there with the, one of the writers and started coming up with this in the studio and now when people read it back to me like that, "Come here Rude Boy, is you big enough?," it does sound so disgusting!"

---->

Change to During an interview on the television show, Alan Carr: Chatty Man in February 2010, the host asked Rihanna about the song's lyrics, with particular emphasis on the line "Come here Rude Boy, Boy, can you get it up?/Come here Rude Boy, Boy, is you big enough?"[9] Rihanna explained: "When we wrote the song, it was kind of a freestyle ... I liked the West Indian influence that the music had, and, I just went in the booth, they were already jotting down some ideas and, that came to me, I just ran in there with the, one of the writers and started coming up with this in the studio and now when people read it back to me like that, 'Come here Rude Boy, is you big enough'?, it does sound so disgusting!"

See teh difference between the quotes placed in it. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critcal reception

Chart performance

Live

  • Rihanna performed "Rude Boy" --> Repeated in second line
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • the latter of which she was joined on stage by American rapper Young Jeezy, who is featured on the song. --> Unnecessary
    You think it's unnecessary to say that Jeezy joined her to perform Hard? How? It's describing what happened instead of being a list of cold facts. I shortened the sentence. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
    That would have been appropriate for the "Hard" live performance section but here it is undue.
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At various points, you describe the dresses, but wqhat exactly is it adding to the encyclopedia? She's not Gaga that the dresses are part of the performance and are critically analyzed... so then?
    It adds description about the performance. You can't have one set of rules for Gaga and another set for everyone else.
    Actually it is true. If there is no analysis of a performance, there is no point in going into details about dresses. That constitutes as fancruft. See the FAC of The Emancipation of Mimi.
     Done There are only two instances now where i describe what she is wearing, as news publications had commented on them. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same follows for the rest of the section. If you can't find notability of these performances, there's no point in having them.
    Each paragraph has a purpose. The first gives performance details before it was released as a single, the second is single promo performances, and the third is performances since it has been released. That is how I structured it and I'm keeping them as they are. You wrote less than one line on the Alejandro article saying that Gaga performed the song at Radio 1's Big Weekend. Where is the notbility with that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 23:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WAX accusations doesn't ring my bell since you are missing the main point. It's about establishing the notability of it. And I'm pretty sure each Rihanna performance is accompanied by some critical info.
    I think all of the performances have notability. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then establish their notability with third party critical info. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

References

Charts

Do you mean it should be this way??? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The {{singlechart}} template can be there but yes, the formatting and the coding jargon should be as per the link pointed by Jivesh. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the scope formatting, than no, this is not necessary for satisfying the criteria, which only asks for compliance with five style guidelines. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen FLCs recently? We are transitioning WP:ACCESS from FLs to GAs now. Its better that all of them are formatted. GACR is moving in a new direction. I hardly look into the GACR as its outdated now. Calvin, I think Jivesh can help you on this. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much work is needed for this one. Pretty poor I must say. — Legolas (talk2me) 17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's as "poor" as what you say. It could be a lot worse, and I have reviewed a lot worse. In fact, you have passed worse. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 00:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed poor. When each and every section needs work, that implies the article was underprepared and is not on par. Remember, a GA or FA review is not for pointing out obvious errors and MoS issues. It is understood that PR and copy-edits should have removed them earlier. And by the way, this attitude of bringing up my work in every instant is not exactly helping the process, and neither your articles are they? So refrain from making such comments. Your snarky remarks will never benefit you anywhere, neither here, nor FAC or FLC. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the charts table should be formatted like how it is on Cheers (Drink to That)? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, I have made one dummy edit to the article so that you can understand what's missing for complying with WP:ACCESS. Do it for the rest of the tables and we are good to go. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the tables Calvin. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work with how the Certifications table is set out. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to do a dummy edit again? — Legolas (talk2me) 04:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would work Legolas. The certifications table use the template {{Certification Table Entry}} Novice7 (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I tried out a dummy edit. Its 99% working, just that the scope="row" remains instead of disappearing. I will give the article another look over tomorrow Calvin, and then we are good to go. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing left, Calvin you need to add accessdate parameter like here. We are fine to roll then. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to "dummy edit" again Legolas. I clearly saw what you wanted me to do as I did it for both the Charts table and End of Year table. Don't assume because I say something won't work, that I don't know what I am doing, because I clearly do know how to do what you just asked. But the way the Certifications table has been coded, you code does not work and distorts the table when previewed. And I've done the accessdate parameters. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(→) You need a lesson on your attitude Calvin. First of all, you have absolutely no clue about content editing, about policies and about what works and doesn't. Second of all, you crib about everything. In FAC, in FLC, in GAN, everywhere. And its not me who has noticed this. Nathan, Orane, Mark and countless other people have noticed this and are disappointed. You should be learning from this, not trying to throw an attitude because, frankly, you are a poor editor. — Legolas (talk2me) 12:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should watch how you phrase things Legolas. You may mean something to come across differently to how you intend, but words on a screen can be interpreted very differently to how you want it to be read, and I am not the only person who thinks this and thinks you have a poor attitude toward other people, but unlike you, I am not dropping other people in it. And I don't even know who Orane and Mark are, so how can people have an idea as to what sort of person they think I am when they don't even know me? I didn't like how you assumed I had done something wrong without checking it yourself, but when someone else raised the issue and said that it didn't work, you believed them and checked, and found that the code did not work. But whatever, I'm not getting into this again. And I know I'm not a poor editor, at least I actually do things by myself without having to depend on others co-editing with me and letting others do the majority of the work. But regardless of this, all of your points here have been addressed. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Problem

8::: There's nothing wrong with the Daily Mail references, I've removed some references, so I'm assuming this is the one you are talking about now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steel drums are a welcome presence on the production. I saw this phrase,. Anyway, can you please explain? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean its used in the foundation of the song? That's original research. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but i requested an explanation? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to explain? Its as simple as Christmas is on 25th what the reviewer is saying. The part added in the article is OR. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is as simple as Christmas for you not for me. What does a sentence like "as its foundation" mean? How can it be used? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be, coz there were no steel drums at the song's foundation. It was just the ska. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That is why i wrote Okay above. I wanted to ask when we can phrase it as such. Does the reviewer need to state it exactly as such? ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he she needs to, otherwise its our own interpretation. There in comes OR. I feel that steel drums are mainly on the bridge of the song, but that's my observation. I cannot add it right? — Legolas (talk2me) 16:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks for your explanation. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are some other problems. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the Background section be expanded further? A quick search gave me two interviews with Ester Dean! Novice7 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they can be expanded. Good links Novice. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ester Dean and Makeba Riddick are two different people. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The background section is enough now that it can be splitted from the composition. Also the composition can be further enhanced with the chord analysis from Musicnotes. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Musicnotes please. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a chance to see comments Legolas. I do have a real life. I don't know how to read music so I can't add it. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help, you can ask for it. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean and what it looks like, I've seen it in other articles, but I don't know how to read it on the website or how to write it here. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add it for you. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OKay thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further observations

Can you close this now. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still issues cropping up whenever I look into the article. I will close it when I feel the article has improved to be a GA. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Novice comments
Comment- IMO this article was a GA when I reviewed it. Now it is even better than that and this review should be closed. The things the reviewer is asking to be fixed constitute FA candidate requirements. This article completely meets the requirements of GA. I would take this to FA nominations. This is one of the best written articles I've seen. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has improved significantly since its first GA review and all posted issues seem to be resolved, this article has been closed as kept. Novice7 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Rude_Boy_(Rihanna_song)/GA2"