Talk:Heat (perfume)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: My love is love

This will be interesting. I don't believe there has ever been a perfume brand "Good article" or "Featured article" before. I will begin this review shortly. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First off, just let me say, this is the best Wikipedia article about a perfume I have ever read. There are some needed improvements for it to reach GA status, but my hat's off to you for making such a thorough, organized, and neutral article. The most important problems involve close paraphrasing or other inappropriate use of sources. I also have suggestions regarding the organization and completeness, and a few more minor issues.

The overall organization is good, but I have a few comments.
 * Organization and completeness
 * The article doesn't actually mention anything about what's in the perfume (as in, the ingredients), or how it's made (such as in what country, or using what process). Do any of the reliable sources discuss this? If so, it should probably be a part of either "Development" or a new "Production" section.
 * It seems to me that "Heat Ultimate Elixir", "Heat Rush", "Heat: Limited edition CD", "Midnight Heat", and "Heat: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour", should all be subsections of a "Related products" supersection. Does this sound acceptable to you?
 * The article does not mention True Star or Pulse. In my opinion, it would be better if, when the "Development" section calls Heat "her first fragrance", it mentions that she was previously associated with True Star. And then if you do create a "Related products" supersection, it could begin with some sort of introductory sentence that mentions that Knowles released four related perfumes before switching to the Pulse line in 2011. What do you think?
 * The "Products" listing for Heat really belongs in the "Packaging and scent" section, I would think, rather than the "Reception" section.
 * Everything ✅ except the first one; I don't think I can find sources about that. My love is love (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If there's nothing in the sources, that's fine. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the main challenges in writing (or reviewing) an encyclopedic article on perfume is that so many of the main facts about the product are inherently opinions that are difficult to reword. It's be tricky to get the balance right, since you don't want to have entire sections made out of just direct quotes, but you also can't use specific language from a source without directly quoting it. This can be a plagiarism or close paraphrasing issue. Similarly, when a statement is an opinion or marketing claim, the article can't state it as fact, but has to use an "According to so-and-so" disclaimer.
 * Close paraphrasing and quoting


 * Close paraphrasing: The article says Heat "embodies a compelling spirit". The website says "Heat embodies that compelling spirit". That's too close. Reword, omit, or use quote marks.
 * Disclaimer needed: In the same sentence, the article shouldn't say "As a whole, Heat is an 'alluring [and] modern fragrance', which embodies a compelling spirit", since that's making a POV claim. Instead, you have to word it along the lines of "Heat's official website describes the perfume as an 'alluring [and] modern fragrance' that represents a 'compelling spirit'", or words to that effect.
 * Close paraphrasing: The article says it "it featured her favorite flower, which is orchid". The source says "they both feature my favorite flower, which is the orchid". Again, that's uncomfortably close.
 * Close paraphrasing: The article says "The scent features floral, fruity, woody perfumes, rare as well as sensual flowers". The source says "This floral, fruity, woody perfume features rare, sensual flowers". This needs to be either omited, reworded, or made a direct quote.
 * Disclaimer needed: The arcticle says "and it is both 'feminine and irresistible'", but that's a marketting claim, not a fact. Try something like "and it is marketed as both 'feminine and irresistible'."
 * Big problem. Nearly the entire section on top notes, heart notes, and base notes, is copied from the website. Only small bits of it are given quote marks. This is clearly a serious problem, probably the most serious problem in the article, and it will be very tricky to fix. It wouldn't be appropriate to just quote all of in the article, after all. I would rewrite the entire section in your own words, also using Holly Siegel's descriptions ("floral-fruity-woody blend and notes of neroli, almond and tonka bean"), and any other descriptions of the scent you can find from other reviewers. (Except don't use the dumb "car fumes and vanilla body spray" quote, obviously. That's not a description, it's an insult.)
 * All those same problems reappear in the description of the "notes" of Heat Rush and Heat: The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour. Reword them, or use direct quotes, and find other description of the scents if possible.
 * The extended quote from Knowles (at the bottom of "Packaging and scent") is fine. But consider leaving out the final sentence. It's kind of fluff, and doesn't relate to the perfume as directly as the other sentences in the quote.
 * The article says "by using notes that are meant to capture a more private side to the multi-hyphenate entertainer". One of the sources (and not the one given for that sentence!) uses the exact same words. You'll have to reword it entirely. (Besides, who uses words like "multi-hyphenate"?)
 * Again, with "Ultimate Elixir mixes spicy-floral Red Vanilla Orchid and Osmanthus petals with the sensuous notes of Cedarwood and Amber, then adds in delicious Vanilla and Tonka bean"
 * Again, with "peach-flavoured candy paired with nondescript flowers"
 * Again, with "Honeysuckle nectar, musk, and warm, sensual sequoia"
 * Again, with "a fruity floral fragrance that is luminous and vibrant with a dewy delicacy at the same time". (Plus a disclaimer would be needed.)
 * Same with Midnight Heat. "The fruity floral perfume opens with juicy top notes of Dragonfruit", etc. Direct quotes (or rewordings) and disclaimers are needed.
 * "a one-shoulder purple mini-dress" is a more minor close-paraphrasing issue.
 * I think that everything is ✅. My love is love (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The close paraphrasing issues are more serious than you seem to understand. The essay on Close paraphrasing describes the issue well. Changing a few words here and there is not good enough; an entire rewrite of a source's content is necessary to avoid the problem. Otherwise, the article has to be either tagged with Close paraphrasing or, if the violation is serious enough, the article must be blanked and replaced by Copyvio. Normally, that's what I would do in an article with this many close paraphrasing problems, but the rest of this article is of such high quality that I'd rather fix it if at all possible. I am going through the article myself and rewriting the problematic elements. That way we can retain the important information from the sources, without reproducing any of their copyrighted wording. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have gone through and fully eliminated all close paraphrasing issues. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

These are minor copy-editing or MOS-related issues, listed in order in the article.
 * Minor issues
 * It's better to say "The fragrance's commercial spawned controversy", rather than "The fragrance's commercial spawned a controversy".
 * It isn't clear what "the number-one scent in the United States" means. Do you mean "the best-selling perfume in the United States"? Besides the lead, it's also stated in the "Reception" section, where the source does not support the claim at all, so it needs a better source.
 * Technically, saying that something "received mixed reviews" means that some were positive and others were negative. (It's almost a meaningless term, since nearly every reviewed product has had both positive and negative reviews.) When the lead says it "received mixed to positive reviews from critics", that isn't clear, since mixed reviews include positive ones; I would reword to something like "It received both positive and negative reviews from critics". (And wow, that Amy Odell review was just vicious and snarky!)
 * Most claims in the lead don't need to be cited, since they're cited where they are repeated in the body of the text. The only statements in leads that need cites are particularly controversial statements and direct quotes. I don't think the "best-selling celebrity fragrance" claim needs to be cited in the lead, but the direct quote "sexy imagery" should be.
 * The "Development" section opens with two sentences in the passive voice. It would be clearer and smoother if the text used the active voice: Knowles announced, Knowles created.
 * Mormois didn't discuss about his collaboration, he discussed his collaboration.
 * Regarding the terms "top notes", "heart notes", and "base notes", these shouldn't be capitalized. Also, "middle notes" is more standard industry terminology than "heart notes". And top notes "feature", rather than "features". (But since that section needs an overhaul, I'm not sure if this will still be needed.)
 * When you say "Knowles would be re-releasing her first fragrance as an ultimate elixir", it would be better to put quotes around "ultimate elixer".
 * The text implies that "Lost Daze" remixed "Fever". But they didn't, did they?
 * Since the cover of the Heat EP is non-free, and the EP is not the main subject of the article, it would help fulfill our non-free content criteria if you gave some "critical commentary" about the cover. Do any of the sources mention what the cover looks like?
 * I think you mean that Midnight Heat is "packaged in a purple bottle", not "packed in a purple bottle", right?
 * You give a price ($59) for Midnight Heat, but you don't for any of the other products. And it's not clear whether you refer to the 100 ml product, the 15 ml product, or what. It seems to me that either price is appropriate for all of them, or none of them.
 * Everything ✅ except the "critical commentary" about the cover. I can't find anything about it. My love is love (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All are now fine. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * All issues resolved.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * All MoS issues resolved.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * One non-free image needs critical commentary
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article fulfills all our GA criteria. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * One non-free image needs critical commentary
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article fulfills all our GA criteria. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article fulfills all our GA criteria. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)