Talk:9 Lives (Alexandra Stan song)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Rather than bring them up here, I will just fix any minor issues I see myself. If you're unhappy with any of my changes, just revert them and we'll discuss here instead. I'm happy for you to work on any issues I bring up as I bring them up; don't feel the need to wait until I finish the entire review. Freikorp (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written? {GAList/check|y}}
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: {GAList/check|y}}
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {GAList/check|y}}
 * "digital consumption" strikes me as an odd term. Why not just say "digital download"?


 * Can you shorten the piping to Dec. No. 5946/212/2015 in both the lead and the body? It's a bit long-winded.


 * I don't think your music sample needs the introduction "A 22-second sample of "9 Lives"" - it's obvious what song it is and that it is a short sample.
 * ❌ I think this should be left as it stands now. I've seen it on many other articles.


 * "Furthermore, it was mixed and mastered" - I don't see any value in the term "furthermore", I think you should just drop it.


 * "makes the listener move" - You've got two citations to support this, and neither of them are in English. Therefore I don't think it's appropriate to use quote marks. This seems to be a reoccuring theme in this article. The quotes "no trouble has ever managed to bring her down" and "Even though it was quite cold ... " were not originally in English. Do you know if Wikipedia has an official policy on putting your own translation into quote marks? I don't think it is appropriate.
 * ✅ Tried to amend. Check out!


 * "While Portuguese portal Original Tune" - Same thing here. I think you should drop the word "While", and then reword the comma mid-sentence so that the sentence still makes grammatical sense.


 * You have a section entitled 'Release and reception'. I think you should separate the 'release' information and the 'reception' information into two separate paragraphs within the section
 * ✅ Fixed it in another way. Check out!


 * "Stan performed a stripped-down version" - what does that mean? What is a stripped-down song? Is it slang for acoustic?
 * ✅ Yes, that's the word's meaning, but I changed it, though ;)


 * "On the same occasion, the singer was challenged to sing ..." - Why are you mentioning this? Since it's not related to this song I think it is unnecessary trivia.
 * ❌ I think this should stay here. You're right: It's not about the song, but about the singer's performance of that song, which is a point.


 * "had previously collaborated on "Au gust zilele" (2016)" What is 'Au gust zilele'? Is it another single? And how can it have been a previous collaboration since it was apparently released the year after the music video was filmed?
 * ✅ Fixed language


 * "While the clip was filmed in Stan's native" - again, I don't see while you use the term 'While' - I think you should just remove it.


 * "Stan wears a black wig from Belher" - What is Belher? Is it a place or the name of the wig manufacturer? In the case of the latter, I think you should remove it as an unnecessarily promotion.


 * "apart from a guy and a girl [singing] a song and [dancing] to any wharf [...] other actions do not occur", concluding that, "It can be rather called a complement to the track". This quote presents a problem. Firstly, like the other instances above, it's in quote marks, when the original text is in Russian. Secondly, the translation is not in perfect English. I suggest you remove the quote marks and just paraphrase the general message the write was trying to convey.
 * ✅ Tried to fix...


 * I think the music video information should be in its own section, entitled 'Music video'. I believe for this is the most common format for song articles.
 * ✅ If we do it that way, then we'll have only two sentences for the live performances section. I believe in such cases (I've seen it in other articles, too) we can make an overall "Promotion" section. In fact, the video is promotion, too...


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * There's no information on live performances. Can you find reliable sources mentioning that Stan performed the song live in concert anywhere?
 * ❌ Sadly, there are no further sources about any other live performances.


 * There's no discussion of the music itself. How many beats per minute are there? What is the tempo, and what key is it in? Etc etc. Have a read of the second paragraph of the 'Background and composition' section of this article I wrote for some inspiration on what you can do here.
 * ❌ Unfortunately, the coverage for this song is rather poor...
 * No worries. If there's no coverage of this then there's nothing we can do about it.

Placing this one on hold until the above issues are addressed. Well done overall. Freikorp (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall: {GAList/check|y}}
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you VERY much for the review. I've responded to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy for this to pass now, well done. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)