Talk:Overprotected/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992
  • Infobox: "Release" needs a {{start date}} template
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: "Length" needs a {{duration}} template
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was released on December 18, 2001 by Jive Records, as the second single from the album worldwide - remove "from the album"
     Not done No need to remove it. - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "from the album is needed", however, I would make it "the second worldwide single".--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It received mixed reviews from contemporary critics, as some reviewers noticed the song as way for Spears to "break free" - is missing a word
    • I think the whole "Break Free" concept should be elaborated slightly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the song peaked at number twenty-two in Canada" - per WP:ORDINAL all numbers greater than nine are spelled out
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The singer has performed "Overprotected" ..." ---> "Spears has performed "Overprotected" ..."

"David Browne of Entertainment Weekly also noticed europop influences on the song" - remove "also"

"of the single in the country" - remove

  •  Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is United Kingdom wikilinked?
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is United States wikilinked?
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before dropping the chart in the following" - following what?
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an interview with Harper's Bazaar on 2011" - change "on" with "in"
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It begins with Britney" - change "Britney" with "Spears"
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Towards the end of the video, we see segments of Spears in a room with walls covered in pictures and articles about herself." - don't use WP:WEASEL words ("we see")
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Los Angeles, California" - change "at" with "in"
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marathon shoott" - something is wrong
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singer" - change to "Spears"
     Done - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As they leave the place" - you do mean the hotel right?
     Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 21:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix these concerns before I do a spotcheck and a reference check. Happy holidays, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing checking
  • FN#3 A catalog number (publisherid) and page numbers are recommended.
Url added. - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#9, FN#11, FN#12, FN#15, FN#16, FN#27, FN#28, FN#30 be consistent in weather or not you wikilink MTV and MTV Networks (compare with FN#1, FN#31)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's Amazon. What doesn't make this reliable? - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to go through this AGAIN. Please look at this discussion. I'll pass the article once this source has been replaced. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 02:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that "release dates and other such information on Amazon is frequently wrong", since a single/album is released in several formats on different dates. These dates are provided by the labels. Plus, the album wasn't sold through iTunes since it had a minor release. I have changed the source, but you have no argument on proving that Amazon is unreliable. - Saulo Talk to Me 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#20 is in French and needs to be presented as such (compare with FN#5)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#26 the language is not needed - remove (if you insist in having it, please be consistent and add all other FNs that are in English)
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#55 [1] does not verify that this single peaked at number 34 on the Swiss Charts
It's a searchable database. There is no permanent link except for this url. - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN#56 [2] does not verify that this single was certified gold in AUS.
 Fixed - Saulo Talk to Me 01:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com can be used for release dates but not for reviews (reception / critical commentary). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, it has never been established that Amazon.com is unreliable at least not by editors contributing to music articles. Bear in mind that iTunes Stores do not sell physical copies while Amazon do. Singers are not foolish to the point to release their material to Amazon if that website/retailer is bad. I can show you FAs using Amazon.com and they are recently promoted ones. Seeing that discussion (the link you provided), I would like to know the number of times Amazon has listed wrong release dates. I can bet anything, it does not outweigh the number of times it has reported correct release dates. We better use Amazon than apply WP:OR in music articles. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Amazon.com is only good for critical commentary (that's it). Amazon.com is not a reliable source (coming from someone who works with music articles) and have been deemed "not good" by experienced GAN reviewers. Once everything has been fixed I'll pass the article. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said the total opposite. Amazon.com cannot be used for critical commentary. It can only to be used to source release dates. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to User:Jezhotwells‎ (and myself) Amazon is not a reliable source. I'm done talking about this, its time to move on. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then how will we source physical releases? And it does not depend on you and the other editor (who I know). It depends on the whole community. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, AJonna asked me to comment on this, can I ask what reference number the source for Amazon is quoting, other than that; "We can't really answer the question without asking ... reliable for what? There is no such thing as a 100% reliable source, or a 100% unreliable source... because reliability depends on specific context (ie exactly what statement in what article the source is supporting)." MayhemMario 16:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is being used to source a release date. I have always done this for all the GAs and FAs I have written. It is pretty normal to use Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational electronic commerce company with headquarters in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is the world's largest online retailer. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jivesh with all do respect, you only have one FA (which I applaud, congrats :) However, look at this discussion about Amazon.com. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jona, I was not trying to be arrogant. Amazon may be frequently wrong but not always and remember that it is the label of an artist which goes the release date to Amazon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I was not trying to say that, please forgive me if it may have sounded as such. Oh yea I know, that's where I can verify if a Selena CD is coming out (can't trust chat boards ;-). Furthermore, I used to use Amazon as a source but since I've been told about it, I don't. I seek other sources, if I can't verify it then I just remove it. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than squabble over whether Amazon is or isnt a reliable source, why not look for antoher? I mean for instance, if the artist went a daytime show, the presenters always say at the end, so when's the release date? You could just use (Press release). {{cite press release}}: Missing or empty |title= (help), maybe? MayhemMario 16:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. It does not matter. Coming back to the topic, the problem is that you have been told. Amazon is good with release dates for music. I don't know about books, etc, but for music, it works. And there is no need for another source, even if we want we cannot find one as this song received a limited release. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, for release dates, why not use the albums/singles' liner notes? (If there was a re-release or a commentary release). Anyways, I do believe the user gave the source to the booklet of the single and removed Amazon. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents - Ajona, I'm not sure if you're aware, but you are contradicting yourself. I completely agree with Jivesh. On music articles, critical commentary is what is valued most. So, I'm confused as to how you think Amazon is unreliable, yet suitable for critical commentary? Additionally, if it's good enough for critical, then why not for release dates? From my understanding, Amazon is only reliable for release dates (what Jivesh told you). This method is used throughout many FAs (it was proven acceptable during my FAC), yet I have never seen it used for critical commentary. Point blank, Amazon can be used (obviously, record label press events etc. are the best to use) for release dates, but not for anything else. Lastly, Salo, I've said this before, but I really find this article running very short on usable and readable content.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Nathan and Jivesh. Amazon is one of the most reliable sources for release dates, and on the same level as iTunes (Amazon also precedes iTunes). To my knowledge, there has never been an inclusive discussion to question the reliability of Amazon: none at GA, FAC, or any of the relevant Wikiprojects. What put me off about Ajona was his comment ("According to User:Jezhotwells‎ (and myself) Amazon is not a reliable source. I'm done talking about this, its time to move on. "). Well who exactly is User:Jezhotwells? And when did both of you collectively decide that Amazon is unreliable? And why do you feel the need to impose this on every other article? On what grounds did you come to this conclusion? Show me the evidence. And, I'm not very familiar with the GAN process, but why is an article's promotion left in the hands of such editors? Orane (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overprotected/GA2&oldid=1140125655"