Talk:Alejandro (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

My, you have been busy lately! Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really, just kinda saddened with the recent reviews that are taking place for the music articles. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

 * Quotes need sourcing every time used, even in lead
 * "sexual innuendo scene with her dancers"
 * Can you integrate the recording details into the body?
 * First release date should be used in infobox
 * Done. First release date implies first physical single release date, nt promo or airplay date as per a previous discussion. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove ref for writers in infobox. Also I forgot to explain the second point (lol); the "sexual innuendo scene" is not mentioned later. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Worse, she did a threesome. Lol. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The recording details should be in the 'Background' section, and the writers in infobox don't need a ref. Also, I thought that in the US, the radio add date was the date we went with, because they don't have CD singles any more, and digital singles are not released if the album has already been released, because people download them as album tracks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which recording detail are you talkin about, the studio name? It is added then. As for the writers in the infobox, they are as per the ASCAP or BMI registered names, per a previous consensus at WP:GAGA, regarding liner names vs registered names. They do differ when artist's use pseudo-names/stage names like Gaga. Hence it is the BMI reference of the names. Now, for the release date, I think for this song both a CD single, a physical remix EP as well as download was given a date. So, Im not sure whether the physical date or the airplay date would go there. My sensibilites suggest that a physical date is actually more feasible, being a date when you can actually get the song, it becomes tangible. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 09:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it makes sense to include the date on which you can obtain the song, but in the US the radio add date is the only indication of release, so that is generally what is used. See "Hot Tottie" for an example. It's not a major, so I'll pass now, but I'll leave you to mull that over. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeahhhhhh, my "how many?"th GA!!! — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Background

 * Writing/production credits should definitely be here
 * Added, and if it is in the body, it automatically goes to lede. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

 * Paul Lester from BBC felt that "Alejandro" "moves at an Ace of Base pace." - awkward with two quote marks side-by-side
 * Is there a reason that Lindsey Fortier's quote is not with the other Ace of Base comparisons?
 * Confused. It is there in the Ace of Base section only, comparing to DTA. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The first three sentences are AoB, then it moves to Abba, before Fortier's quote comes in. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you meant that, I was wondering. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Chart performance

 * This needs a decent copy-edit for hashes and numerals. Also make sure that every chart place is preceded by 'number', ie "number five"
 * Done. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see inconsistencies. There is "number 72" and later "Hot Digital Songs chart at seventy-one". There are also several placings not preceded by 'number'. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of sales needs an 'as of' date. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ya did it, although looks like tomorrow Paul Grein will report that it crossed 2 million and Gaga is the first artist... blah blah blah... — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Music video

 * File:Gaga in Alejandro Video.jpg should be smaller
 * In block quote: "I would never, ever tell you! [about the concept of the video]" – exclamation point should come after implied text
 * "it seemed reminiscent of Madonna's "Vogue" video and Xtina's "Not Myself Tonight"" – not quote, so spell Xtina out in full
 * "A good part of the video" – slightly unencyclopaedic tone
 * Bob Fosse dedication needs a source
 * "before a shot of her as the nun eating a rosary." – what about the shot? Also, they are called rosary beads
 * "MTV's Kyle Anderson found references to Madonna's 1996 film Evita and the music videos for her songs "Like a Prayer" and "Human Nature", besides "Vogue"" – rewrite
 * "Anthony Benigno from Daily News felt that "The shock songstress..." - lower case 't' in 'the'
 * Link S&M
 * "Jed Gottlieb from Boston Herald" - the Boston Herald
 * Link Nazis
 * "Klein added that the scene where Gaga devours the rosary beads is meant to represent "the desire to take in the Holy."" - Theophagy link is a bit WP:EASTEREGG, and whole sentence is pretty much copied from source. Rewrite, and explain the Theophagy outside of a quote
 * Perry's quote has a lot of crap in it. Maybe shorten to "Lately, I've just been seeing some things that are...a little bit like not something I would do", or even remove the quote entirely and replace with an interpretation?
 * I have just noticed that all of the images need their full stops (or 'periods' for you?) removed per MOS:CAPTION
 * Done all. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Live performances

 * That image is not sexual innuendo
 * "Brian R. Fitzgerland from the Wall Street Journal said that Gaga was a "damned talented" performer." - relate to the performance
 * Ya done. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stability
Have you thought about semi-protection? The history seems chocka-full of reverted IP edits.
 * No, and not needed. IP activity and reverting it doesnot constitue instability. It is only untill the article is subjected to edit warring for this, that the stability question comes. There is a discussion going on at FAC. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 14:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)