Talk:Beat of My Drum/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking a read through now... J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's looking like the prose is a fair way off GA quality at the moment. A number of sentences are very choppy or don't make sense, punctuation (semi-colons and apostrophes, for instance) is used incorrectly and rather odd words/phrases are used. I've done some copyediting, but more is needed.

The sky is blue.
 * M.I.A., which is linked several times, is a dablink
 * This should really use British dates, as she's a British artist- 5 June, 2011 (with or without the comma)
 * "The song was produced by Diplo" Diplo? Is this a person? A company?
 * "to have a British and fun concept, specifically to be a song of which people can sing and dance to." This doesn't make sense
 * "the song references days in her band Girls Aloud of which she felt undervalued." Again, this needs to be rephrased
 * "to acts; Robyn and Kelis", for instance- that's not what a semi-colon is for.
 * The lines about critical response in the lead need to be completely reworked.
 * "Commercially the song had a mixed response" How is that a mixed response? If it was #1 in the US, but didn't chart in the UK, that would be "mixed". (Although, as an aside, this is an appropriately used semi-colon- "the song had a mixed response; in the United Kingdom..."
 * Footnotes should be placed directly after punctuation (or directly after the word if there is no punctuation, but preferably the former) like so-
 * "by Diplo and" Again. Either of these names worth redlinking?
 * "The song was produced by Diplo and French producer Dimitri Tikovoi[1], Roberts confirmed that she had co-written all of the tracks off of her debut album Cinderella's Eyes album, she stated that the lyrics in the album tell stories of things that have happened in her life.[2]" Comma splices, poor copyediting, reference formatting problems...
 * The next few sentences have more problems.
 * stated ... stated ... stated ...
 * "The song features militant dance beats with the introduction in a with a monotonous quality compared to that of Uffie." I have no idea what this means
 * "in a "playfully" commanding performance during the chorus section," Hardly NPOV
 * "with the chorus riff being compared to a cheerleader chant[1] as well as gaining comparisons to artists; M.I.A. and Daphne & Celeste[5]." More of the same problems. Rephrase needed
 * "The song has been described as "erratic" whilst it bounces "glibly" between tracks; "Pon de Floor" by Major Lazer, with comparisons deriving from the beats and stutters within the track[1]." Again, just not clear what this means. The prose as a whole could do with a real massage. How can a song bounce between tracks?
 * Many more comma splices; the section just seems to bounce from one thing to another. There's no flow.
 * ""Porcelain Heart" is featured as a b-side for the single, a pop song with themes of glam-pop, it has been described as "dramatic", with Roberts vocals being theatrical, and vibrato." Split to two sentences? Links to genres/terms? Attribute quote?
 * It's not "Roberts band", it's "Roberts's band" (or "Roberts' band"). I've changed it.
 * "a night out drinking, and has sexual references even referencing politician John Prescott as Roberts sings "Why do the lights in the kebab shop make this guy look less hot?, He's looking like John Prescott."" Tweaks needed...
 * "gave the song five stars" When you say things like that, you really need to say what it's out of.
 * Be careful about what's linked where. As I said before, M.I.A is linked several times, and I've just noticed that Girls Aloud is linked rather oddly
 * I've tried to reformat that Jeff Benjamin information a little ("talents may even reach stateside" is hardly an appropriate phrase), but I think more is needed
 * "Popjustice responded noting" Do not personify publications. Further, is the article actually a response to Benjamin?
 * "The music video for the track, was directed by Wendy Morgan, Roberts called her "focused and passionate" and said she felt comfortable with her immediately, claiming that she herself is perfectionist, she also claimed that Morgan was also which was grounds upon why they enjoyed working together." Splice splice splice. That's not what commas are for.
 * "the Through Nicola's Eyes webisodes" If that was a series, the name should be italicised
 * More of the same problems next few sentences; needs smoothing
 * "During the shoot of the music video, furthered statements about performing solo and pressures, as she stated the director was telling her to be "good", Roberts explained "You’ve got to like be strong and be professional and get through it, obviously enjoy it, but if you feel uncomfortable, you can’t look uncomfortable otherwise it’s not going to work".[18]" I've no idea what this means
 * "On Roberts official Twitter" Again! Apostrophe! (I've not done this one)
 * "which she uses as a platform to urges listeners to dance to the beat of her drum." I know it's meant to be a direct quote- is that what was said? It doesn't make sense...
 * "The Daily Mail also reported" Again, personification
 * Music video synopsis is choppy in places, and could do with being cut down. Could we lose a couple of lines? Only the key details need to be given.
 * "Roberts also performed the song on The Paul O'Grady Show, she performed the opening of the song acapella, until she performed a troupe style dance performance with hand signs spelling out of the letters; L, O, V, and E" Rephrase?
 * "Stern, Bradley. "NICOLA ROBERTS: BEAT OF MY DRUM (SINGLE REVIEW)". MuuMuse. Retrieved 2011-08-11." NO NEED TO SHOUT
 * What's MuuMuse, and why is it reliable?
 * Well it really is a man named Bradley Stern he reviews things. It is reliable, major artists give him interviews and it isn't a blog that anyone can edit.
 * "Billboard (magazine)" We don't need to see this. I fixed Metro
 * IRMA is a dablink
 * The chart companies don't need to be italicised. Use the publisher field on the cite template.
 * Same for the Record Label, Viacom, Apple and Digital Spy
 * The copy-paste rationale on File:Beat of My Drum.png is useless- we need a specific rationale about what that image adds to this article- there's no kind of "right" to an image from a music video. Also, jpg would be a more appropriate format for something like that, but converting it now won't help much.

I've not listed all of the prose problems- a general (and heavy) copyedit would be a good thing. I'm yet to check the sources. Though this is a fair way from GA status, I'm happy to place it on hold so that you can salvage it- it's by no means all bad, and I could certainly see this being of GA quality in the near future. Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed a lot of the problems, and if I have missed any its probably because I got a little confused :/ --FeuDeJoie (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Second look through

 * "produced by Diplo" Again, who/what is Diplo?
 * M.I.A. is still a dablink
 * "specifically to be a song of which people can sing and dance to" Doesn't make sense. "specifically to be a song along with which people can sing and dance"?
 * Capitalisation should be consistent. "Beat of My Drum", not "Beat of my Drum" or any other alternative
 * "Lyrically, the song discusses days in her band Girls Aloud of which she felt undervalued." Doesn't make sense. Also, it was hardly her band
 * "amongst contemporary critics" I'm not sure "contemprary" is needed
 * "as well as its originality in comparison to other solo efforts from the girl band Girls Aloud of which Roberts is part of" Doesn't make sense
 * "A music video featuring Roberts in a hall with various dancers, performing street style dancing saw her wear 1970s and 1980s inspired outfits and gained positive responses from critics." A lot is being piled into this sentence. Perhaps it should be split in two?
 * In the first para of the background section, you seem to bounce between talking about Girls Aloud, Roberts's album and Roberts's song. It's not very well structured.
 * "record producer Diplo and French producer Dimitri Tikovoi" One's a record producer, the other's a French producer?
 * "Diplo, who co-produced the track." You said he was a producer in the line before
 * "When she got the track back from Diplo, she was too nervous to listen to it as she did not want to be let down by it because it meant so much to her." Rephrase?
 * "After positive responses from the pair, Roberts declared "I'm so proud of it. I can't believe it's mine. The man is a genius"." Who's the "pair"? And who's "the man"?
 * The copy-paste rationale on File:Nicola Roberts - Beat of My Drum.ogg is not helpful. The sample is justified, but a decent rationale (use Template:Non-free use rationale, explaining explicitly what the sample shows and why it is needed) is required
 * "militant dance beats" What does that mean?
 * I'm not sure what else to put, I thought militant would be okay, what else can I put?
 * I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I don't think the word means what you think it does. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "with the introduction vocals being of a monotonous quality compared to the vocals of artist Uffie" This needs its own sentence, but at the moment is not so NPOV
 * "in a commanding vocal performance during the chorus section," Again, this reads like a review rather than an encyclopedia article
 * "The song has been described as "erratic", as it has elements of; "Pon de Floor" by Major Lazer with comparisons deriving from the beats and stutters within the track." Again, that is not how a semi-colon is used. The composition section is a mess; it really needs to be completely restructured.
 * There seems to be no real logic to how the discussion of the lyrics is split between the background and composition sections.
 * "Website Popjustice noted" Personification
 * If you restructure a little, making the chart section a subsection of critical reception (you may have to rename the reception section) then the quote from Roberts could be used inline after the chart performance, or to link the two sections. It's a good quote, and I think it deserves to be in the prose proper.

That's enough for now- I will look through the rest of the article later. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "She stated that the pressure derived from her time with Girls Aloud leaving her uncomfortable on her own as it would be only her on which critics would be focusing.[17]" Very difficult to follow
 * "During the shoot of the music video Roberts furthered statements about the pressures of a solo career as the director was telling her to be "good" during the shoot but said that feeling uncomfortable during the shoot could have a negative effect on the overall video, Roberts explained "You’ve got to like be strong and be professional and get through it, obviously enjoy it, but if you feel uncomfortable, you can’t look uncomfortable otherwise it’s not going to work".[18]" Again, very hard to follow. It's a very long sentence.
 * "MTV Buzzworthy stated they were" Again, personification
 * I'd like to see some sources for some of the claims you are making in describing the music video- 1980s fashion? Disco dancing
 * "a troupe style dance performance" What does this mean?
 * The name of the Disco Blisters song is inconsistent
 * IRMA is a dablink
 * "Stern, Bradley. "THE NICOLA ROBERTS B-SIDE “PORCELAIN HEART” IS ARGUABLY EVEN MORE AMAZING THAN THE SINGLE". MuuMuse. Retrieved 2011-08-11." Remove the caps?

There are perhaps other issues- I'm going to need to have a snoop through again after this batch is dealt with. I've made some more changes. J Milburn (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done all, I have to say though the John Prescott info was pretty well heard of, it was on MTV news on TV and it was on the Metro paper when I was on the bus... Should we put it back in? --FeuDeJoie (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel it's worth including, put it back in. It just felt a little out of place. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Third read through
It's looking like this is starting to come together. The section on the b-sides and the reception sections are looking great- I'm happy with how they are now. The other sections still need some work. I'm giving it some more copyediting as I go. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "and was co-written by Roberts" Roberts and whom?
 * "commenting on the hooks of the track" What does this mean?
 * "street style dance" street dance really isn't a useful description
 * "Roberts describes herself as a baby in the corner." I think a direct quote would be useful here.
 * There is a quote in the composition section, but I dont know really what to add there?


 * There are still useless copy-paste rationales on the music sample and the clip from the video. Start from scratch- use Template:Non-free use rationale and fill it in, explaining exactly what the media are being used to show, and why that needs to be shown.
 * Literally I have no idea what to do with that, could you possibly do one so I could see what to do :-) ??


 * "militant dance beats." Seriously, how many times have I said this? It is not clear what this means. How can a dance beat be "militant"?
 * Oh yep, I was meant to put drum beats!


 * "dominant vocal performance" Again, not NPOV. This is review language, not encyclopedia language.
 * "In the chorus, Roberts sings "L. O. V. E. Dance to the beat of my drum" in a dominant vocal performance with the chorus riff being compared to a cheerleader chant as well as gaining comparisons to artists M.I.A. and band Daphne & Celeste." That whole sentence needs reworking
 * "The bridge sections are also significantly different. The section features dancehall themes and gathered further comparisons to Major Lazer as she sings "Don't it make your heart go wow, How I've turned this whole thing around?". " Is this all referring to the bridge? How many bridges are there?
 * Yes the lyrics and the instrumental is the same in both of the bridges.


 * "The vocals are performed against sirens." Useful fact, but it really belongs somewhere else.
 * Why is the blockquote about the lyrics on the album not in the background section?
 * "adding pressure telling her to be good at a time when she was so uncomfortable." What does this mean?
 * Inconsistency between the caption of the music video image and the music video synopsis. Are there three female dancers or four?
 * "She performed a group militant style dance performance with hand signs spelling out of the letters; L, O, V, and E whilst she sang them.[7]" Again with the militant
 * Sorry, I'm a bit lost to where the second "militant" thing is?

It's coming together. Not far to go now! These are the edits I made. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fourth read through
I'm taking in mind your previous comments. If you can't find something, crtl+f is your friend. However, I'll also split this review.


 * Lead
 * "to the hooks of the track" I have no idea what this means
 * "street style dance was released" "street style dance" is not a useful phrase


 * Background
 * "she had co-written all of the tracks from Cinderella's Eyes," This just seems to contradict what you say elsewhere.

...And I'm going to stop there. I'm not sure how to get this across. '''REMOVE THE FUCKING WORD "MILITANT". IT DOESN'T MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS, IT MAKES NO SENSE IN CONTEXT.''' Dear God... I've spent a lot of time reviewing this article, and you have said, at least once, that you have dealt with this issue- you blantantly have not. If you genuinely think it belongs in the article, could you please explain to me what "militant drum beats" means? I have no fricking idea, and I've listened to the song. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Composition
 * Sorry for being so blunt. I'm sure you can appreciate that it's annoying for advice to be falling on deaf ears when, naturally, you have to devote time to a review like this. I will get back to this soon. I want to see it promoted as much as you do, honestly, but, at the same time, I want to get it right. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, dont worry. I just let it slide over me!--FeuDeJoie (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from a non-rewiever
Hello! I see you are reviewing this article! I have a question: the release history says the single was first released on June 3, 2011, so why does the article say it was released on June 5? Also, the genres of the infobox are not sourced anywhere in the article. The composition section does say, however, that it is "a dance-pop track with themes of indie pop", so I guess that dance-pop should be the genre. And, by last, all the sources are missing correct work/publisher and linking. I'll wait for an answer on your thoughts about these comments. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I change the genre and all the date. But what references are incorrectly formatted? --FeuDeJoie (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, all the newspapers are missing publishers on the references, plus, references to mtv should have work=MTV and publisher=MTV Networks. Example of article with correct references: Don't Let Me Be the Last to Know (go to the references section to see). - Sauloviegas (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the real benefit of that. Newspapers are often more famous than their publishers, and the publisher of MTV is pretty obvious. Further, the work parameter of the template italicises everything, which just isn't helpful- for instance, why on earth should "MTV" be italicised? That's what'd happen if it was listed as the "work". Overusing the whole work/publisher thing is not beneficial- I've certainly not done it on any of my featured articles on pop culture (see, for instance Andrew Johnston (singer), Connie Talbot, Dustbin Baby (film)). J Milburn (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, it was just a comment. :) - Sauloviegas (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Im sorry but "MuuMuse" is not a high quality reliable source needed for GA listing. No author credits, no publisher backing like The New York Times, nothing that makes them anymore than a simple blog. Needs to be removed unfortunately. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Credits and personnel section (see Blow_(song)) is required for GA listing or the article fails criteria 3a. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 01:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to agree with both of these points. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content
You mentioned above that you "have no idea what to do with" non-free content rationales, after ignoring the problem several times. I note that the music video screenshot was uploaded by you. With respect, if you don't know what you're doing, you should not be uploading non-free content. The purpose of the rationale is to explain in what way the non-free content meets the non-free content criteria; it is meant to be specifically about that sample/image in this article; while copy-paste rationales are appropriate for some usages (for example, a single album cover when used in the infobox in the article about the album) they are most certainly not appropriate for others- for instance, music samples and video screenshots. There is no "automatic entitlement" to use these, and so detailed rationales are required explaining what the sample shows, why that needs to be shown (with reference to what is said in the article) and why that cannot be shown with free content (be that a free image, free text or whatever). Template:Non-free use rationale is a fill-in-the-blanks to help make sure you don't miss anything. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay so I have re-written it again, and I'm hoping this time it is along the right lines? I removed the muumuse sources but the credits and personnel section is tricky, the single booklet has no info and the album isnt released yet, and I cannot find any sources for the credits other than what is already written in the article, but is it really compulsory. In the infobox it has the credits listed within the article but looking at articles such as "Confessions of a Broken Heart (Daughter to Father)" it has no credits section and was passed to GA status in the last week. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not consider it compulsory, as such, but it's certainly important. I am not going to fail it purely for lacking a credits section. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its important too, but I've pre-ordered the album and so when that comes hopefully its going to have the credits in it! :) --FeuDeJoie (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A final(?) read through
Ok, here's what I'm going to do. This review has lasted a lot longer than it should have done, and there have been problems which have just not been fixed until there was some fairly heavy pushing, so I'm going to give this a "last" look through, and make a call based on what I find. If there does not seem to be any major issues, I will post the smaller stuff, then promote when that is fixed (or promote straight away if there are absolutely no problems). If there are still big issues, I will close the review, but offer pointers to what needs to be fixed up ready for next time- I'd hope to see it nominated again in the future. Anyway, here goes.

It's getting there, it honestly is. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "upcoming debut album, Cinderella's Eyes." Now released
 * "f****** them up with the effects, and then playing some hooks and then f****** them up" Have you censored this, or was it censored in the source? If the former, uncensor
 * In the lead, you say that the lyrics were written by the three of them- in the body, you imply they were just from Roberts
 * There is good information in the quitebox in the writing and development section which is not in the main body of the article. For instance, you don't mention elsewhere that she was first working with just Tikovoi. I appreciate the desire to "decorate" the article with quotes, but information should be in the body
 * "The verses, choruses and bridges are all distinctively different. While the chorus consists of chants, the verses are spoken. The bridge sections are also significantly different." Good information, but needs ironing. How about "The verses, choruses and bridges are all distinctively different; the chorus consists of chants, the verses are spoken, and the bridges are [whatever the bridges are]."
 * "The section features dancehall themes and gathered comparisons to Major Lazer as she sings "Don't it make your heart go wow, How I've turned this whole thing around?"." I don't really know what you're talking about here
 * What precisely is "MTV Buzzworthy"?
 * "The video opens with two men street dancing in a white hall" Again, this is useless. "Street dancing" doesn't really mean anything. Where are you getting this from? You don't cite anything
 * You link bridge in the music video section, but don't earlier
 * Lead says an '80s outfit, video section says '70s. Check your sources.
 * They the only performances? Presumably, you'll update this when she goes on tour and things?
 * What do you mean that the credits have been "adapted" from the liner notes? Also, who's Maya von Doll? Why's she never been mentioned before? If these are the only credits, perhaps a credits section isn't needed. No instruments? Everything synthesised?
 * Sentence case capitalisation of source titles would be good- "Nicola Roberts Feels Self Conscious Dancing" should be "Nicola Roberts feels self conscious dancing".
 * Really not sold on the use of a pic of Roberts performing with Girls Aloud. Do we not have a recent one? Or one of her on her own?

Status check
This review has been open for about two months, and there haven't been any changes for about two weeks now. Do we have a decision? Do you need some help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I started other projects, and school work is hectic! After I finish the review for Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga i'll be on it. Shouldn't be much longer. -FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this can be wrapped up soon. I'm tempted to fail it myself since there remains no progress after two more weeks. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this one at this time. There has been an awful lot of progress, but there's still a way to go. Spiceitup, I hope you can find the time to make the changes I have suggested, and then renominate. I can't make any promises, but I may be able to give a quick review when you do renominate if you drop a line on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)