This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Just a passing comment that We Rave You does not look reliable, especially as it explicitly markets itself as "offer[ing] uniquely tailored promotion and marketing strategies and campaigns to grow your brand" (so presumably doesn't distinguish editorial and promotional content well). Same for Celeb Mix, which has been discussed fairly unfavourably at RSN. — Bilorv (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The stylization is not sourced anywhere in the body; maybe do this at the part about the title in background and comp?
We have various sources in the article sourcing the fact that "Redrum" alludes to a scene in The Shining, so I have included a ref which explains that "redruM" is a palindrome for "Murder" in that scene. This should be enough of a source, and I don't think we need that ref in the lead too. Also using "redruM" is not that uncommon in popular culture.
The release info should be its own sentence directly after credits, starting with the song and mentioned it was her debut single
I think it fits better as the second sentence, but I split up the first one either way.
All of the writers being mentioned here reads too much like a supermarket list; write "It was written by Sorana and 15 others, including..." listing a few notable ones
"and one's resulting heartbreak from it, "Redrum"" → "and a resulting heartbreak, it"
Remove "2008 song" before "Heartless" because the year is not notable for the lead and speech marks here make it clear this is a song
The year is very often included after songs, so I think it should stay. Also it makes the reader understand that we're talking about a somewhat older song.
"praising its catchiness," → "praising the catchiness," to avoid overusage of it
The commercial sentence should be the second one of the second para instead
"with the single's release." → "with the single release."
"Commercially, "Redrum" peaked at" → "Commercially, the song peaked at" though the positions are incorrect, as Russia is 23 and Croatia is 26. Switch the order of the countries too per Russia having the highest position, plus these need to be written out in the body as I will provide instructions for later on.
Retitle to Reception, so the commercial performance can be added at the end of the para
For what it's worth, "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance" are usually separated, regardless of length. Sean Stephens (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Stephens That is not true, reception can be used for both forms of it when the critical and commercial are both not large, as many articles have done on Wiki. --K. Peake 19:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it was my understanding that there was a consensus somewhere to split these. Regardless, it's more beneficial to the reader to find the critical/commercial information in two different sections, as commercial performance is entirely different to how the song was received by critics. Anyway, I didn't intend to interfere in any way and I won't restore my changes at this point in time; it seems you two have agreed on this anyway. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"received positive reviews" → "was met with positive reviews"
"their fullest ability"." → "their fullest ability."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences
"that resembled that of" → "resembling that of"
"highlighted similarities between "Redrum" and" → "highlighted the song's similarities to" to avoid overusage of and
Mention the CelebMix writer's name
I'm really hesitating because the only name displayed is Heiko, no last name. And that sounds somewhat bad in a section where all writers mentioned have their last name.
Add the Russia position first since it is the highest, then the Croatia one
I truly don't think this is needed, and it is unnecessary. There is nothing special about those peaks and we have no backstory on the song's commercial performance. The lead should include things that are stated in the body too, and those peaks are included in "Charts". This is enough. Otherwise we will have the charts stated twice and they're are not even high peaks.
Copyvio score looks quite high at 44.1%; cut down the level of direct quoting from BroadWay World ref to resolve this, trying the Guetta quote first
This does not apply to when we have quotes from artists because it is nothing self-written by the publication or its author.
Add the language parameters for non-English citations on refs 2, 8 and 17
Per my earlier comment on whether We Rave You should be italicised, if not then cite as work/website instead on refs 4 and 9
What makes HITC a reliable source for ref 5?
Their authors seem to be quite legit and either way the website is not used to source controversial information, but rather a well-known fact surrounding the (in fact really really evident) meaning of "redruM" backwards.
On hold until all of the issues are fixed! --K. Peake 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Hey there, thank you so much for your review. Sorry for the delay, I was busy in real life with school. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: This mostly looks good, but I do still have two disagreements of ours that I will be going into further detail about. Firstly, you should either mention the CelebMix author by name or merely writer a writer of, as either definitely works better than writing that the publication commended the song in the context of a review. Also, everything mentioned in the lead is supposed to be written out in the body, therefore the chart positions must be mentioned there; if they were too low then you should not have placed them in the lead in the first place. --K. Peake 19:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed! --K. Peake 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
