Talk:Can't Hold Us Down/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to offer a few thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

✅, trimmed. ✅, reworded. ✅, minor rewording and including source. ✅, reworded. ✅, expanded. ✅, clarified. ✅, reworded. ✅, removed. , I'll sort that out. ✅, corrected some references. ✅, reworded. ✅, replaced reference. ✅, corrected. ✅, removed Who Sampled, but what's wrong with Music Notes? Doesn't the sample page get the point across? ✅, removed. Looking over that information, it didn't seem particularly useful or interesting. ✅, removed unverifiable chart. All others are verifiable. ✅, removed. ✅, caption reworded. ✅, uploaded another sample over the other. ✅, now included in Background section. ✅, removed.
 * The lead's a bit long considering the length of the article.
 * "which incoporates elements of dancehall nearing its end" Clumsy phrasing- seems to suggest that the song contains elements of the later days of dancehall.
 * "The song has also been noted for promoting self-expression among women, encouraging Aguilera's "girls all around the world" to "shout louder" and verbalize their opinions and emotions.[11]" The reference given doesn't support this- it's just the lyrics.
 * The critical reception section is a little quote-farmy. This seems to be the way a lot of pop music articles are written, and it's not really a great way to write. "Smith said x. Jones said y. Thompson said z." It could do with a little bit of restructuring- for instance, deal with all of the discussion of the lyrics in one place. That said, "Betty Clarke from The Guardian opined that the song "rewrites feminism to a hip-hop beat"." isn't really a critical review. I'm also not really following what's meant by "that "if Aguilera ever really squared off with her fellow ex-Mouseketeer, she'd kick Britney's ass"." Is he meaning she would win in a fight? If so, what's that got to do with this song?
 * Why do you mention some charts, but not others, in the prose? Also the fact it went Gold in Aus is important.
 * In the video, are the women Augilera's friends or just women from the area?
 * "marking one of the most successful video of Aguilera" Clumsy
 * "It was also inducted to the TRL Hall of Fame.[27]" What is this and why do we care?
 * Presumably, it was released as a single in more countries than you've listed, seeing as it charted as a single?
 * There's some inconsistent reference formatting. I don't know why there is the obsession with putting both the publication and the company that owns the publication, but if you're going to do it, do it consistently.
 * "On her latest world tour Back to Basics Tour she performed a fragment of the song after "Still Dirrty".[28]" Clumsily written, will go out of date.
 * What is Xtina Web, why is it reliable and why are you italicising it?
 * Stylus Magazine/BBC Music/MTV News/Digital Spy/Sputnikmusic do not need to be italicised.
 * Who Sampled/Music Notes do not need to be italicised. Unclear reliability?
 * What is ATRL? Definitely reliable?
 * Have you checked the charts/references you use against WP:BADCHARTS?
 * I'm not feeling the need for the music video screenshot.
 * The image caption for the concert pic is straight up wrong- that's not what she's performing at all, according to the Flickr page. Also, don't refer to her as "Christina".
 * File:02 Can't Hold Us Down.ogg should really be 25 secs at 64kbps, not 26 at 72. Petty sounding, perhaps, but the GA criteria explicitly require that non-free content is used correctly.
 * I see from the categories the song was first released in 2002- this could be better clarified in the article.
 * Category:Sex-positive feminism is not appropriate.

I'm sorry, I don't really feel that this article is ready for GA status. I also made some fixes which included adjusting some very sloppy writing. I'll leave this open for now, but I worry that the article is too far from GA status to be fixed appropriately in the timeframe. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Another quick note, This is from The Charleston Gazette, and may be worth including. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ✅, added to the Critical Reception section. Thanks for finding this.


 * Thank you for reviewing, I appreciate your feedback. I'm surprised that I didn't recognize these problems beforehand, but regardless I'll work to correct the problems you pointed out and make sure that the article meets GA requirements. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Second read through
Looking much better- some solid improvements. A few more thoughts-
 * Ambiguity as to the producer: Lead says "the latter" of "Aguilera, Matt Morris, and Scott Storch", infobox says "Scott Storch, Christina Aguilera, E. Dawg", main body says "Storch".
 * ✅, is now consistent.
 * "In the United States, "Can't Hold Us Down" reached number 12 on the Billboard Hot 100. In doing so, the song became Aguilera's tenth track to peak within the top ten positions in the chart." Did it peak at 12, or did it peak within the top 10? Can't be both!
 * ✅, removed last statement.
 * The "release history" section is still clearly(?) incomplete. I'd recommend doing away with it altogether- the information it includes can be merged into the background and composition section.
 * ✅, good idea.
 * The sample's still too big. 64kbps would be sufficient.
 * ✅, (finally!) figured that out.
 * I've also had a play. Not quite as small as I'd like, but it'll do. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting close- well done! J Milburn (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's ready now. I'm promoting. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)