Talk:Call the Shots/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that you've been waiting nearly two months for this review. I'll leave some thoughts in a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Originally intended to be released as a single for The Sound of Girls Aloud: The Greatest Hits (2006), "Call the Shots" leaked online in September 2007, and was released as the second single from Tangled Up on 26 November 2007." This is completely unclear. Presumably you mean to say that it was going to go on the Greatest Hits, didn't, then was leaked and so was released? Hopefully this will all be cleared up in the main body of the article, but, and considering that many readers don't read the whole article, the lead is currently completely unclear.
Are any of the other writers/music video director worth redlinks?
"The song was originally intended to be released as a single for The Sound of Girls Aloud: The Greatest Hits (2006) the same year, but was deemed "too downbeat, when a greatest hits single needs to be a celebration."" Who did the intending/deeming?
"Despite leaking online in September 2007,[5] "Call the Shots" was released for digital download on 26 November 2007, through Polydor Records,[6] while it was also made available on two different CD single formats the same day.[7]" Neither "despite" nor "while" seem to be used correctly here.
"programme Jo Whiley's Live Lounge." A programme would be italicised, surely?
"The first disc included ... second disc includes an original composition entitled "Blow Your Cover", co-written by Girls Aloud." Firstly, tense issue. Secondly, co-written with whom?
"Initially, the Tony Lamenza Remix of "Call the Shots" was being included on the CD single also" Annoying passive voice
Is it "electropop and europop" or "dance pop and pop rock"?
"Contrary to previous singles released by the band" I don't think you can use "contrary to" like that. How about "unlike"? Also, do you mean all previous singles released by the band?
"The lyrical content of the song regards the ending of a relationship" Odd construction. How about something like "The lyrics are concerned with" or "The song is about"?
I think "generally favourable" is a bit of understatement, in many ways- you've just got the one review that considers it a bit ordinary. I think the claim that it's the greatest single of the 21st century certainly belongs in the lead!
You don't mention in the background/release section that Tangled Up was released before this single. That's important information!
"as well as their second single to chart in the top ten on downloads alone." But it was released on a CD too? Do you mean that it would have been top ten even if it hadn't been released on a CD?
There are other charts than just the British single charts worth discussing in the chart performance section, according to the chart performance table
"her boyfriend" is this actually her boyfriend, or is it a male actor who you're guessing is portraying a boyfriend? If the latter, how about "a young man" instead?
"Her boyfriend walks" Same again (and again)
"For 2009's Out of Control Tour, flew from a smaller, specially-constructed stage in the centre of the arena back to the main stage.[41]" What does this mean?
The music sample lacks a specific rationale for this usage. It's justified, but you need to write a rationale explaining as much!
Ideally, the album cover would be no bigger than 300 by 300.

I made a few tweaks. Couple of quibbles to be had with source formatting, but I'm not going to fuss about that for GAC. Generally, this is actually a really good article- the writing needs to be tidied up in a few places, and a few confusions with what happened when need to be ironed out, but, other than that, a great GAC candidate. (Not having a non-free use rationale is pretty damn sloppy too, but I'm sure you can write one.) I'm sure I'll be happy to promote once these little bits are sorted. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more bits that have been brought to my attention:

You shouldn't be using ukchartsplus.co.uk- those "year end charts" don't seem to really exist.
The YouTube link you're using as a source for the Billy Cogan point is usersubmitted and potentially creates a copyvio problem. Do you have any other source for it at all?
Discogs sources aren't ideal. I'm happy to let it slide given the uncontroversial nature of the material, but do you perhaps have an alternative source?

Hope you're able to resolve these issues. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So so sorry it's taking me so long, I'll start to resolve them now. Thanks for reviewing, by the way! - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 00:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to close this review. I've identified a number of problems which need to be looked into 12 days ago, and it's over a week since your comment here, and you've not edited the article at all. I recommend you work on the problems I have identified, and then renominate the article. I'd be happy to take another look once you've done that, if I have some free time. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]