Talk:Tennis Court (song)/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer some thoughts; I listened to Pure Heroin last month and thought it was fantastic. J Milburn (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not keen on the multiple album covers. I understand that it's appropriate to cover the song and the EP in the same article (and I've added the EP to the navbox) but, unless the covers are significant, I'm not certain we need them both.
    • The covers for both the single and the EP are very different, so yes, we do need them. 和DITOREtails 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really don't buy that. A lot of books have got multiple different covers and a lot of films have multiple, differing posters; that doesn't mean we can use them all. I don't see any reason to assume that the appearance of either cover is significant in and of itself. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just saying, the covers are both significantly different enough to warrant inclusion, therefore it meets Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. It's still minimal usage, and helps the reader who may only know about the EP but not the actual single to see what they were looking for. Also you have yet to give a policy to back up why both these covers should not be both included at the same time. I really don't want to start an argument here. 和DITOREtails 18:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're asserting that because the covers are different, using them both meets the NFCC. I've shown that your claim is ridiculous, as it would justify using dozens of book covers in articles about books. You have provided no explanation of why a second cover "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic", nor how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Both of these things are required by the non-free content criteria, and the onus is on those who wish to retain non-free content to provide this information. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for the music video screenshot is seriously lacking.
  • "The single garnered commercial success" Very odd phrasing
  • "Lorde performed "Tennis Court" during numerous occasions" Odd phrasing
  • I would appreciate a line or two of background before you jump into details of this song's writing- when was Lorde signed, to whom, when did she/others start writing the music for the album and so forth
    • Perferrably, the album article should take care of that. It's a song alone were talking about and not entirely about the porduction of the album, and I feel it would just make the song article too unfocused. 和DITOREtails 17:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm asking for a line or two of context- nothing more. You wouldn't write an article about (for example) a battle without talking about the events that led up to it, even if you only allude to them. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the luxurious lifestyle" What luxurious lifestyle?
  • "by the MTV Video Music Awards" How can awards say something?
  • "To promote "Tennis Court", Lorde held a concert at Le Poisson Rouge in New York and performed the song among other tracks from The Love Club EP on 6 August 2013" You're yet to mention that the song appears on The Love Club EP, which feels like a big omission!
  • I don't really like the way you refer to Lorde as "the singer" in the promotion section.
  • "The video was shot continuously without any cut" I'm not sure "without any cut" makes sense
  • "It features Lorde staring into the camera as the song plays, not even singing to its lyrics[40] but only saying the word "Yeah!" after each verse.[39] As she turns staring directly into the camera and staring down, the light fades "in and out."" This doesn't read very well

The sources seem appropriate. Note that I've made a number of fixes. This isn't actually a bad article at all, and I've no doubt that this'll be ready for GA status soon- with a bit of work afterwards, this may even be a potential FAC candidate. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also suggest leaving the names of the sections the way it is, as they are far more clear and logical to use. "Writing and lyrical interpertation" discuess both the inspiration of the lyrics and how they were written, and it well goes together. The production and music section talks about how the track was produced, and the production elements and composition and arrangement of it. 和DITOREtails 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you feel that you have finished working on the issues I've raised and I'll have another look through the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I think all of your issues have been addressed. — Simon (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking again, this article's really shaping up well. I tweaked the writing in places, and, though it's sometimes a little choppy (so short of the bar for FA status) this is pretty much ready for GA status. There is one outstanding issue: I don't really want to start a fight about this, but I've been twice reverted at Template:Lorde. As far as I can see, if this was released as an EP, it needs to be on there; if it wasn't, then this article is misleading. J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "EP" is more of a maxi single, not an album like The Love Club EP. Compare with the various releases including "EPs" for "Bad Romance" and The Fame Monster. Adabow (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll leave you chaps to work this out between yourselves- it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. Happy to promote now- great work. J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tennis_Court_(song)/GA1"