Talk:Hollywood (Madonna song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thevampireashlee (talk · contribs) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I'll be reviewing this article either today or tomorrow. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
At a glance, the article is well put-together structurally. Each contentious statement is sourced, and the sources appear to all be notable. Given that the article is a Madonna song, that's no surprise. The images and sound clip are within the parameters of fair use and have been appropriately licensed and rationalized. The lead adequately summarizes the topic. Further suggestions for improve coming soon. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✅
 * Lead
 * Link to studio album.

✅
 * The second line reads a bit awkwardly and has some minor grammar conflicts i.e. it needs commas. Suggested revision: "On July 14, 2003, it was released as the second single from the album by Maverick Records, and it also appeared on the greatest hits album, Celebration (2009)."

✅
 * "...refers and criticizes..." - omit "refers"; "criticizes" is sufficient.

✅
 * lifestyle is one word.

✅
 * "...of district of Hollywood" is grammatically incorrect and awkward. What's wrong with just saying "Hollywood"?

✅
 * "It received mixed reviews from music critics, who considered the song as catchy, despite criticizing its lyrical content." is a poorly worded sentence that relies heavily on modifiers and weak verbs. Replace the verbs with stronger variations. Suggested revision: " Music critics applauded "Hollywood"'s catchiness but criticized its lyrics ." Effective and succinct.

✅
 * Final sentence of the first paragraph has logical problems. How is charting in the top ten in several countries only moderately successful? Upon what criteria are we basing this success? Is this sourced later in the article, as someone saying the some was commercially unsuccessful? At present, it's original research, and frankly, it's logically flawed. Charting within the top ten in over five countries strikes me as extremely successful. It says that it "failed" in the United States, but it was a Dance Club hit. I think the sentence needs to have all biased omitted and simply stick to the facts. Suggested revision: "The song topped the UK Singles Chart and Billboard's Hot Dance Club chart, reaching the top ten in Canada, Finland, and Italy.

✅
 * "in different styles and fashions" - too ambiguous. Are we trying to say she's depicted in various outfits? What makes the outfits "different"? Are they outfits from across various time periods? For example, garments popular in the 60s, then the 70s, then the 80s? I know the answer, but casual readers may not. We cannot assumed that this is already known.

✅
 * Link to American Life (song).

✅
 * "...generating strong reaction from the media." - poor grammar. It should either be, "...generating strong reactions from the media." or "...generating a strong reaction from the media."

✅
 * The word "dancers" needs an apostrophe.

✅
 * Composition
 * In the sound clip's caption, "lifestyle" needs to be one word.

✅
 * "The song is introduced with sounds of tweeting birds before an acoustic guitar starts a four chord sequence that has been compared of that of the band Red Hot Chili Peppers." is exceptionally loquacious. Trim the excrescences. Suggestions: "Following the sound of twittering birds, the song opens with an four-chord sequence played on an acoustic guitar; the rift was compared to songs by the Red Hot Chili Peppers." As it stand, the sentence is wordy and the strand of logic is difficult to follow.

✅
 * Does the book by Rooksby include the word "texture". It seems like jargon to me. Aesthetically, I understand what is meant by it, but it could be misleading or confusing to some.

✅
 * What is a "rap part"? Rapping? Rap should be linked to rapping if so. A comma belongs after "American Life", outside of the quotation marks.
 * ❌. Rapping was linked to, but the sentence makes no sense now. Since I have no idea what "rap part" was meant to convey, I can't suggest a revision.


 * Changed it into the certain manner I think
 * Looks good now, thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✅
 * "Lyrically, it discusses American culture and greed focusing on Hollywood as a place of stars and illusory dreams,[1][4] with Madonna singing in the bridge of the song, "Music stations always play the same songs/I'm bored with the concept of right and wrong"." Another longwinded sentence that's difficult to follow. Break it into two if possible. American culture should be linked to. A comma belongs after greed. The meaning of stars here could be considered ambiguous or jargony. I would link it to Celebrity for clarification sake, or replace the word "start" altogether with celebrity or "pop star" or "movie star". Something more specific. The sentence should end at "dreams" with a semi-colon and continue with, "the bridge opens with Madonna singing, "...lyrics here...".

✅
 * The "she" in the following sentence is Madonna, right? I think it's a bit ambiguous. I originally confused it with the author Ben Shapiro and his review of the lyrics. Suggested revision for that sentence: "Further, Madonna questions the Hollywood experience, singing, "How could it hurt you when it looked so good?" The period after the lyric needs to be omitted.
 * ❌ - my suggested revision was not used, and the sentence still makes no sense.


 * Changed it into the certain manner I think
 * Looks good now, thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✅
 * "...intention to..." in the following sentence seems awkward. Shouldn't it be "intention of underling"? The quote could always be mended around that wording if necessary.
 * ❌ my suggestion was not used. Grammatically, the sentence still makes no sense.


 * Changed it into the certain manner I think
 * Looks good now, thanks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The rest of the section is good.

Stopping for now...--Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 11Jorn talk 20:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Remixes
 * A comm is needed after "Hollywood", outside of the quotes.
 * A comma is needed before GAP.
 * "...given away to customers, and were not available." - omit "away". The comma before "and" is misused.
 * Link to the Christian Science Monitor in source 11.
 * "poked fun" seems unprofessional. Try working in the word "satirized" instead.
 * "remains" should be "remained"
 * "A Billboard review considered it as a 'funky dark remix'." - "as" should be removed.
 * Otherwise, everything here is solid.


 * Critical response
 * There eight direct quotes from sources. This is a serious problem. Right now, it's a quote farm. Minimize them down to three direct quotes and paraphrase the others. Sorry, but I will not pass this section. From a certain perspective, this could be a serious violation of copyright.
 * Paraphrased some of the reviews.
 * ❌ Better, but some sentences are still troublesome. For instance, "...is the kind of pop tune that instantly transports you to California." is still a direct quote. But, now that the quotation marks are removed, it's plagiarism. If there are four or more words, in a row, that are taken from the text, it's plagiarism. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ again


 * Chart performance
 * "... peaking at number 34 the following weeks." - should "weeks" be singular?
 * Changed it to "after four weeks".
 * The rest of the section is okay.

Setting this aside for now. The "Critical response" section may be a rather daunting task. I'll postpone the review until this task is complete. I will give you a few days, if needed, to complete this and the other tasks. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I have been addressed all the issues. Also, I added one more image into the article. 11Jorn talk 23:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Critical response
 * I still feel that the sentence about being transported to California is close paraphrasing.
 * Removed the sentence.

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Music video
 * "The video features Madonna in different styles and fashions highlighting the highs and lows of Hollywood, incluiding Madonna dripping in twenty million dollars worth of vintage jewels and gorgeous gowns in several stunning transformations." - This sentence is incredibly long. It needs to be trimmed down to something more specific. The word "including" is spelled wrong.
 * "Hollywood" needs quotation marks.
 * Commas need to enclose "Guy Bourdin"
 * "... are confidential and Madonna acknowledged..." - comma after "confidential".

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * Live performances
 * Remove the comma after "people".
 * Add a comma after "Mother and Father", outside of the quotes.
 * Add a comma after Christina Aguilera
 * "...on top of..." should be "atop".
 * "...wedding cake while wearing a wedding gown and veil..." should be "...wedding cake, wearing a wedding gown.."
 * "...a black coat and a hat..." should be "...a black coat and hat..."
 * Tapdancer needs a comma after it.
 * Tarot cards should be linked to.


 * Track listing
 * All safe and sound here.


 * Credits and personnel
 * All check out.


 * Charts
 * Looks goods.

Everything else is a-okay. Fix the remaining issues, and I'd be happy to promote this article to Good. Thanks for putting up with me thoroughout this review. :D


 * Thanks. I think I have been addressed all the issues. Look at my edits on the page. 11Jorn talk 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall appraisal
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Not the final assessments. This section marks the current progress.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Some sentences do not make sense. Done
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The lead and layout match what is expected of all articles.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * There is a section for references.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Material that could be challenged is adequately sourced, but there is significant copyright violation in the reception section due to quote farming. Done
 * C. No original research:
 * No OR.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Adequate coverage of all relevant topics.
 * B. Focused:
 * On topic.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars at present.
 * 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:
 * Sufficient illustration. Proper rationale and copyright tags.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Informative and useful captions present.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: