Talk:Fight for You (Jason Derulo song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really into pop music, but I've had enough experience with it on Wikipedia. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "BeatGeek and Geo Slam." Are these people or companies? Worth redlinks? ✅
 * "an interpolation of the song" Interpolation isn't the word I'd use, but does this actually make sense? That whole line doesn't quite read correctly, for me.
 * The album booklet of Future History calls it an "interpolation". Oz   talk  05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Derülo performed the song at KDWB-FM's annual Jingle Ball in 2011. "Fight for You" has been covered on The Voice (Australia)." In terms of lead-worthy material, I think I'd rather read a little more about the music video. ✅
 * "The Fame with Lady Gaga, left." Left?
 * "He further elaborated about" Not a good phrase
 * "by Gelly Kusuma, Slam and Teddy Sky at Serenity West Recording Studio and Jim Henson Studios" Any of these worth linking? ✅
 * "the line means so much" What line?
 * ""Fight for You" impacted mainstream radios" Is "impacted" really the best word here? Neither literally nor figuratively (as far as I can tell) did it "impact" radio.
 * "an interpolation of the song "Africa"" Again- I may be wrong, but I don't think this is really what "interpolation" means. It's certainly not how I'd use it.
 * I'd like to see a slightly more detailed rationale on File:Jason Derulo - Fight for You.ogg. What are we listening to? How does it tie into the article? What does it illustrate? ✅
 * "not do "any form of justice" of "Africa"." "justice of"? What does that mean?
 * "album review for Future History" Of, not for ✅
 * "as "perhaps the worst offender" on the album" Worst offender of what? What's he criticising the album for?
 * File:Toto all Modena 2004.jpg lacks evidence of free release.
 * "getting intimate" Avoid euphemisms ✅
 * But Wikipedia is not censored? Oz   talk  07:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's why we should avoid euphemisms. We don't say "passed away", we say "died". J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do you have any suggestions on what I should replace "getting intimate" with? Oz   talk  11:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the video. If they're hugging and kissing, say they're hugging and kissing. If they're undressing, say they're undressing. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Who directed the music video?
 * I could not find a reliable source about the video's director. Oz   talk  07:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "British recording artist Stevie Hoang, who co-wrote "Fight for You", originally recorded the song for this third independent album, Unsigned (2011).[30] Hoang's version features Iyaz.[30]" Why are we only learning about this at the bottom of the article? Was this recorded before Derulo's version? Was the song originally written with this in mind?
 * The references look a little inconsistent in places. It's not the end of the world, but making the date formatting consistent at least would be a good step ✅
 * The sources seem appropriate and reliable for the subject matter.
 * I think my biggest criticism would be that first paragraph of the reception section just comes across as a list of quotes- that looks like a rather lazy way to write. I appreciate the difficulty of turning it into prose, but indirect quotation isn't a bad thing; also, grouping the quotes around themes (to get an idea of what I'm talking about, take a look at how I've written this section- apologies if I seem a little up myself for using my own article as an example, but it was recently promoted to featured status). ✅

Not a bad article at all, considering this isn't a particular well-known or significant song. The writing isn't perfect in some places, but the sourcing seems strong, which is commendable. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If this song was originally recorded by someone different, this needs to be made much clearer; I'd expect to see it in the lead and the background section. Not tucked in a throwaway section at the bottom. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC) ✅

Second read through
Ok, taking a second look through.
 * Did the song appear on Unsigned, or was it pulled before release?
 * It appeared on the album. Oz   talk  00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to see a mention of Hoang's version in the lead, but it's now unclear about when you're talking which one. For instance, "Hoang originally recorded "Fight for You" for this third independent album, Unsigned (2011). The song was released as a digital EP on..."
 * "Derülo performed the song at KDWB-FM's annual Jingle Ball in 2011. "Fight for You" has been covered on The Voice (Australia)." I'd remove this from the lead. It's just not that important. ✅

The reception section is looking much better, but the lead and the production section still could probably do with some prose smoothing. Sorry to be so vague- I'll have a play with it later if it's still looking problematic. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit I don't listen to much radio, but what's " to mainstream radio playlists " all about?
 * Its one of the radio formats in the UK. Oz   talk  11:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but BBC Radio 1 is not the only mainstream radio. It would be like saying " by newspapers in the United States ". J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your right. I've removed the link. Oz   talk  11:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this still doesn't feel right. The discussion about the original recording of the song is very minimal, and I think, in a GA, we'd need more. Naturally, I appreciate that Derulo's version is more significant in terms of notability, but the original recording is a big part of the history of this particular song, and so warrants discussion in the article. Compare to Whiplash (Selena Gomez & the Scene song), another article I reviewed, where the discussion of the original is far more extensive. You might claim that as a song by Spears, the original was more significant, but that one wasn't even released. The whole "interpolation" issue is rearing its head again, as well. Again, looking it up, I'm not seeing why you're using that word. What's wrong with "sample"? J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried many times searching for information about the original recording but nothing has come up. Stevie Hoang is an independent artist so I'm not suprised there isn't any reliable sources about his version. Oz   talk  06:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to request a second opinion. I'm not convinced that this article really feels like a GA, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion
This article is fine to be passed. I've reviewed some of the nominators previous nominations on this singer and the articles are consistent. I would pass the article. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of consistency, it's a question of whether this meets 1a (is the word "interpolation" used correctly?) and 3a (the first recorded version of the song is barely mentioned at all; surely a large part of the history of the song.) How do you feel about these issues? J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You told me to change the word "interpolation" to "sample" weeks ago, so I did! And I've searched for information about the original version like a million times but there is nothing out there. But I'm not surprised since it wasn't released as a single. Oz   talk  21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you did, my apologies. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion
The first thing to strike me is that the infobox lists Jason Derülo, but  Jason Desrouleaux, ... This is dramatically wrong. The same very string is also questionable as it goes against Stevie Hoang article (and logic for that matter). Given the latter issue, I think the question of this song production should be studied in more detail. If needed, it can be failed and renominated once the information is properly published. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The album booklet for Future History mentions Jason Desrouleaux not Jason Derülo, and both versions were produced by the same person. What more do you need?! Oz   talk  21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I need consistency. If it is the same person, it should be addressed with the same name; if the use of another name is absolutely necessary, there should be an explanatory footnote or any other mean of making the issue clear. In the end, the goal of the infobox is to provide some information for readers who are unwilling (or undecided) to dive into the article, and right now it misinforms them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong, if that's how it's listed in the album booklets then that's how it should be written. Till 02:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? That looks strangely similar to verifiability, not truth dispute... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency is a good thing. Till I Go Home, that's like saying "We can't say that he thought the rhythm worked, he said he liked the beat". There's nothing wrong with saying in our own words what the sources say... J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

 * Support passing the article, my only complaint is that (if possible), separating the Background and Composition sections and adding the sample to the composition. Other than that, I can't see why it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Till 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oz   talk  03:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing
Ok, there seems to be a fairly clear view that my objection is not a legitimate one, and so I am going to close this review and pass the article at this time. My apologies if this review has been overly lengthy or painful, and I hope this does not put you off GAC in the future. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)