Talk:Bitch I'm Madonna/GA1

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to review this article. Looking forward to it, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) :) — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 05:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi IndianBio. I'm really enjoying reading this article. Below are my comments for my first read-through up to the end of the Composition and remixes section:

Lead:
 * "The profuse usage of the word "bitch" was also explained by the singer as having different connotations to it." It may not be clear without more context what "different connotations" refers to. Maybe you could say something like "The singer defended the profuse use of the word "bitch", explaining that depending on the context, its meaning is not necessarily vulgar."
 * "The Standard Hotel": I would suggest "the Standard Hotel". Even its own Wikipedia article uses "the" mid-sentence.

Background and development: Release details:
 * "Madonna had invited him for her annual Oscar party, but he could not make it." Consider "invited him to her..." Also, "but he was unable to attend" could be more encyclopedic-sounding.
 * "developed a song which addressed the singer's detractors talking negatively about her longevity in the music industry": Suggest replacing "talking" with "who talked" for clarity. Right now, grammatically, it's not really clear whether the song or the detractors are talking negatively.
 * "where he played Madonna a Japanese pizzicato melody and adrop, which she appreciated": Consider "which she liked"? I feel this would be clearer.
 * "He added guitar sounds over it since Madonna preferred to start her compositions in it..." Does this mean Madonna preferred to start her compositions with guitar music? I'm not sure what "it" refers to here.
 * "Minaj's role in the song was confirmed through Instagram again, by adding the caption..." Possibly find a way to clarify that it was Madonna that, this time again, made the announcement on Instagram. I'm not sure the best way to do it smoothly, but if you need help, I could try to think more about it. But as it is now, I don't think it is clear that it was Madonna who added the caption.
 * "The cover art of the song was also released alongside": I'm not familiar with this usage of "alongside" and would always say "alongside (something)".

Composition and remixes:
 * "Other engineers working included Nick Rowe..." Consider "engineers who worked on the track included..."
 * "Kleinenberg's remix was considered different from them..." May I suggest rewording this for clarity, maybe something like "The sound of Kleinenberg's remix has been said to have a completely [quite?] different sound from all the other mixes [or from the house remixes?]"
 * "Fedde le Grand's remix of the song had minimal effects of the original composition": How about "did not use any of the effects present in the album version"? Unless I have misunderstood, here I would use "version" instead of "composition" because the composition is the song itself, not a given recording or arrangement of the song.

I'll continue with comments about the next sections when I get a chance in the next few days. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Starting changes. Thanks for the detailed analysis Moisejp, really appreciated. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 14:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi finished upto the point you reviewed, please see if it looks fine to you. Thanks for the detailed review :) — Indian: BIO   [ ChitChat ] 03:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It all looks good, IndianBio. This week I am quite a bit busier than I was last week, but I will try to continue with the next sections very soon. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * IndianBio, I'm going to try very hard to continue this review on the weekend. Thank you for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No issues, for a review this good I can wait for long. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 08:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Critical reception:


 * According to Manual_of_Style, "If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside." In this section, there are a number of quotations that coincide with the end of the sentence containing it, but that are not full sentences. My interpretation would be that these require the punctuation outside the closing quotation mark:
 * "most surprising thing about a song that's actually called 'Bitch, I'm Madonna' is that it doesn't have any surprises."
 * "it might not be your favorite Madonna, but it's unquestionably her, and it's far more compelling than the anonymous EDM enthusiast she played on MDNA (2012)."
 * "the right kind of gimmicky, a Nicki Minaj-featuring earworm about partying that’s mindless fun and impossible to take seriously."
 * "as the candy-bass [...] shows, the gulf between her life and her music is now impossible to ignore."
 * "the duality of its title [is] muddied by the inclusion of garish party jams like the infuriatingly catchy but lyrically cringe-inducing 'Bitch I'm Madonna'."
 * "never quite lives up to its fantastic title, and just sounds a bit of a mess, trying to cram in Diplo-produced dancehall rhythms, a dubstep breakdown and the seemingly now obligatory Nicki Minaj guest rap."
 * "absolutely reek of desperation, wanting so badly to shock and offend listeners that they fail to resolve as satisfying songs first and foremost."
 * "repris[ing] her role as Madge's rapping henchgirl." Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "the right kind of gimmicky, a Nicki Minaj-featuring earworm...": I see that this is a direct quotation from the source, but surely this is incorrect English. "Gimmicky" is an adjective and needs to be followed by a noun. I would rework your quotation to make it correct in the Wikipedia article. Ideas: "the right kind of [song] ... that’s mindless fun and impossible to take seriously" or "the right kind of ... earworm about partying that’s mindless fun and impossible to take seriously".
 * "Caryn Ganz of Rolling Stone was also positive, calling it "frenetic" and praising Minaj's verse, calling it "pure fire" ": Suggestion to avoid repetition of "calling": "Caryn Ganz of Rolling Stone was also positive, calling it "frenetic" and praising Minaj's verse as being "pure fire" ". Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Chart performance:


 * I was wondering whether all the percentages (jumps in sales) add anything to the reader's understanding of the chart performances: 748%, 1,703%, 1,454%, 1,026.35%—they're all such huge numbers, it kind of seems to lose meaning. But if you feel strongly you would like to keep them, I won't object.
 * I found the timeline here confusing: "In the United States, "Bitch I'm Madonna" debuted on Billboard‍ '​s Dance/Electronic Songs chart dated January 3, 2015, at number 14 with sales of 12,000 copies.[41] Following her appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, the sales surged by 748% to 9,000 copies, making the song re-enter the chart at number 21." Right now, we don't know when the Jimmy Fallon show happened (we find out later that it was April 9). But what happened between January 3 and April 9—the article is not very clear. It debuted at number 14, we don't know if it went up or down from there; apparently it later dropped off the chart at some point (how much before April 9, we don't know). It's also kind of confusing because the last we hear, it has sold 12,000 copies; then the next we hear, sales go up 748% and it has sold 9000 copies (I know there is a gap in there, but I'm just saying it could be confusing).
 * "The release of the music video enabled the track to sell a further 13,000 copies...": We find out later that the video was released on June 16, but right now it's not clear where on the timeline this happens. Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * another many thanks, I have made the changes and I hope it is satisfactory to you. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 16:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IndianBio. I skimmed your changes, and at first glance they seem good. I will look at them more carefully, and get to my next round of comments, as soon as I can. Thanks again for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reception and analysis:


 * "The video, Lipshutz theorized, was Madonna's attempt to bring back audience for the whole era.": I think you need a word before "audience" An audience? her audience? a new audience? You can decide the nuance you want there.
 * "Brennan Carly from Spin had thought that the cameos would have overcrowded the video, but believed...": I was puzzled why you used "had thought" there. It sounds like she changed her mind. Maybe it is clear if one reads the ref (I haven't gotten to it yet), but regardless of the ref, the Wikipedia text itself needs to be clear. I've only got as far as the first paragraph in this section. Will continue onwards soon. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Both Nolan Feeney from Time and August Brown from Los Angeles Times declared that the video proved "only Madonna can flex enough star power to bring together her A-list competitors in one place."[77][78]" This statement doesn't work well for me for two reasons: (1)The way it is written kind of sounds like it is a direct quote from both reviewers (although of course that would be a huge coincidence!), and (2)Although Feeney says that "only" Madonna can do this, Brown does not go that far, and merely says that Madonna can do it (no mention of whether others can). One idea would be to remove the direct quote and come up with a good paraphrase that encompasses both reviewers' assertions.
 * "He criticized Madonna's team for not being able to release the video smoothly, while noticing that criticisms about the video included "Madonna's age, sexually charged performances [and] need to shock".[67]" Possibly consider rewording one of "criticized" and "criticism" to avoid repetition. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , all done I believe. :) — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 09:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good! In the next few days I will try to look at the Live Performances section, and after that will work through the references. Moisejp (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Live performances:


 * I have only looked at the first paragraph. I notice the description of the Jimmy Fallon performance switches back and forth between the past and present tense. For reference, I notice the synopsis of the video (in the Synopsis section) is all in the present, whereas the description of the scenes in the behind-the-scenes video is all in the past. I don't know if maybe you had a reason for that. One might argue that both the video and (for those who have it) the behind-the-scenes video are viewable anytime, and could both be in the present (and likewise the Jimmy Fallon performance is viewable anytime on Youtube?), but if you have different reasoning for making the tenses different, that's OK, as long as the logic is consistent throughout. Moisejp (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph there are two instances similar to an issue I mentioned in a previous section, where the source is correctly quoted, but there is a typo in the source, which messes up the flow/coherency of the Wikipedia article:
 * "Biance Gracie from Idolator gave a positive review to the performance, saying that "Instead of doing her usual bit of either singing 'Living for Love' or the current single 'Ghosttown', the entertainer decided to switch things up a bit—and we're so glad we did!" Logically, "we're so glad she did" would make more sense there.
 * "Stereogum's Caitlin White was amazed by Madonna's performance, saying that "the fact that she can dance like she this at 56..." ": There is an extra "she" after "she can dance like".
 * In these cases, depending on what works in each instance, you could do paraphrasing, or use ellipses (to cut out "she"), or possibly use "(sic)".


 * It looks like I am done this round of reading your main text. Thanks for all your improvements. Next I will look at the references. I may do one more read-through of the main text at the end, but I'm sure anything I may come up with then will be minor. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm taking some time Moise, to check the refernces. Please give me sometime. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 08:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, IndianBio, let me know when you are ready! Moisejp (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I finally made the changes and sorry for keeping this too long. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 11:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi IndianBio. I'll try to get started at looking at your changes and at the References section ASAP. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References:


 * Just starting looking through this section... For reference 4, the source given is Rolling Stone, but there is a link in the Rolling Stone article to the original Idolator article. Maybe that's acceptable, but would it be better to just directly quote the Idolator article? One thing I noticed in the Idolator article is that "I love when an artist gives a producer the confidence he needs to work with them, and Madonna was very, very open-minded to my ideas" comes before "Those records are gonna be crazy sounding. We really pushed the envelope with some of the stuff we were doing" but R.S. switches that order. It might be truer to the original article to respect the original order. Also, the Idolator article says, "Madonna was very, very open to my ideas" while the R.S. summary that is quoted just says, "Madonna was very open to my ideas".
 * Done by rephrasing. — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble: "One of the tracks recorded was confirmed by Diplo as titled "Bitch I'm Madonna", which he believed would push lyrical boundary for a pop song." (I think grammatically this should be something like "the lyrical boundaries".) Refs 5 and 6 are given to support this. I can't read the ref 6 in Portuguese, but ref 5 says, "I do not usually feel pressured to write hits, but when it's an artist of this caliber, it's obvious that I want to push the boundaries a little bit further and surpass myself. One of the songs we wrote is very cool and is called 'Bitch, I'm Madonna'." I did not see any mention of the boundaries being lyrical boundaries. Moisejp (talk) 06:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by rephrasing. — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "On December 17, 2014, the demo version of "Bitch I'm Madonna" leaked onto the Internet, alongside the other twelve demo recordings for Madonna's then untitled thirteenth studio album." That's the date of the Billboard article, but I don't believe the article says the leak was that day. "All 13 tracks are making the rounds on YouTube and torrent sites" suggests that the leak was likely at least prior to Dec. 17. The Time article from December 18 says the leak was "earlier this week". Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added that Billboard reported about leak. — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "On December 20, 2014, the album became available for pre-order on iTunes Store. When ordered, six tracks including "Bitch I'm Madonna" were automatically downloaded." The date of the Rolling Stone article is December 20, but I didn't see the date of release within the article. What the article does say is "Tracks immediately available include ... "Bitch I'm Madonna" ... Fans can nab the songs as part of an album pre-order or buy them individually a la carte." I guess that's the more or less same thing as "When ordered, six tracks including "Bitch I'm Madonna" were automatically downloaded." But "automatically downloaded" a little bit feels like an extra detail. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree here. The article, published on December 20 says that the release was "effective immediately" thus indicating it was that day itself. — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * don't know if you saw this but can you take a look to my responses again? Let's close this one shall we? — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi IndianBio, sorry, I have been quite busy the last few days. I would also like to finish this off soon. Without really thinking about it, I had started looking at every reference (up to ref 16) but if I keep that up, this review will never end! :-) So my plan is to just spot check a handful of other refs and then sign off on the review. I will try hard to do so in the next couple of days, but depending how it goes, I might be a couple of days after that. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It all looks good, IndianBio. Thank you for your hard work on this article. I should also include in this review that there are two images and one sound clip that all have proper fair-use rationales. The sound clip of 22 seconds is under 10% of the song's length of 3:47. I am happy to pass this article. Moisejp (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the high level review that you did, I have never seen such good review. I look forward to more of your inputs in some FA related task I want to take. — Indian: BIO  [ <b style="font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;color:#1C1CF0;">ChitChat</b> ] 08:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)