Talk:Kiss Me Once/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Please see "Prose" section. Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that the prose has been much improved but I am going to read through the article some more before I sign off on this section. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see "More prose" section. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion this article's prose would benefit from a re-write - rough phrasing, apparent misstatements, other assorted errors (as stated in the "More prose" section). Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see #7 Pass/Fail. Shearonink (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * On my last proofreading-run I found that there are some statements the article makes that are not borne out by the references. (See "more prose" section). Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * The following references have some issues:
 * Ref #98/ifpicr.cz has an internal server error
 * Ref #27/samesame.com.au - I am getting a 403 Forbidden error
 * Ref #107/heraldsun.com.au - getting a "Cookies Required" message
 * Ref #128/mixup.com.mx - getting an error message
 * kylie.com - error message, 404 not found
 * Ref #78/musicweek.com - deadlink/404-not found
 * These will need to be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see these have been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran the copyvio tool - looking good! Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No significant edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All the permissions etc are good. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Good job of finding images that are relevant. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article has been much improved recently, I am still working through another proofreading-readthrough to see if I missed any GA Criteria concerns. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but in my opinion the article still fails 1A:The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct., the article also has some assertions/sourcing issues. Since there are apparently some technical issues on the nominator's end I am giving this some more time but it might be best if I end up giving this article a Fail on my GA Review.  Perhaps at some future date fresh editorial eyes would be of some benefit and a request could be put in to the GOCE for a general clean-up of its prose/verbal tense & referencing/statements issues.  After those edits/corrections/adjustments, the article could maybe then be resubmitted for another GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the "More prose" section and the "Referencing issues" section. 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about this, I hate to fail this article. I know a lot of work has been put into it but its prose issues are too endemic to be fixed in the course of this Review.  I would recommend to the nominator and/or interested editors that the article perhaps be given an editing run by someone from the GOCE and that the article then be resubmitted as a GAN when its present issues are adjusted & corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article has been much improved recently, I am still working through another proofreading-readthrough to see if I missed any GA Criteria concerns. Shearonink (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but in my opinion the article still fails 1A:The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct., the article also has some assertions/sourcing issues. Since there are apparently some technical issues on the nominator's end I am giving this some more time but it might be best if I end up giving this article a Fail on my GA Review.  Perhaps at some future date fresh editorial eyes would be of some benefit and a request could be put in to the GOCE for a general clean-up of its prose/verbal tense & referencing/statements issues.  After those edits/corrections/adjustments, the article could maybe then be resubmitted for another GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the "More prose" section and the "Referencing issues" section. 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about this, I hate to fail this article. I know a lot of work has been put into it but its prose issues are too endemic to be fixed in the course of this Review.  I would recommend to the nominator and/or interested editors that the article perhaps be given an editing run by someone from the GOCE and that the article then be resubmitted as a GAN when its present issues are adjusted & corrected. Shearonink (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Prose
Lead: Background and production: Composition: [The phrase "amongst others" is used three times in the article and seems somewhat redundant.] Song: "eurphoric" is misspelled.
 * Upon its release, Kiss Me Once received generally favorable reviews from most music critics. Majority of them - should be - The majority of them
 * On May 27, one day before Minogue's 45th birthday, she teased information about an "interesting" collaboration, later to be revealed as a duet with Spanish singer Enrique Iglesias. - maybe this should be - later revealed as a duet with Spanish singer Enrique Iglesias
 * In February 2014, Minogue and Furler both confirmed to be the album's executive producer's respectively. - maybe this should be - In February 2014, Minogue and Furler both confirmed Furler was going to be the album's executive producer's.
 * Minogue enlisted several songwriters and producers to create the album, such as Sia, Cutfather, Greg Kurstin, Pharrell Williams, and MNEK amongst others. - could be something like - Minogue enlisted several songwriters and producers to create the album, including Sia, Cutfather, Greg Kurstin, Pharrell Williams, and MNEK.

General word usage:
 * Could something other than "whilst" be used? For instance, in the "Composition/Release" sections the term is used in three successive sentences and in the "Singles" section, the term is used 4 times, 2 of them being in successive sentences.

Critical reception:

Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Annie Zalenski from The A.V. Club was less ethusiastic, grading it C–. She felt the material "drain[ed]" originality and innovation from Minogue's behalf, - I can't quite tell what this sentence's intent is.... ' "drain[ed]" originality and innovation from Minogue's behalf'...?

Comments from others
In Shearonink's last example, I don't understand the construction "from Minogue's behalf": how can you take or drain anything from a behalf? I'm also troubled by using the quoted word "drain[ed]" (originally "drains") with "originality and innovation" when it's used in the actual review in conjunction with "personality and nuance", quite different characteristics. I don't see how the second sentence accurately reflects Zaleski's (not "Zalenski") review. All such review summaries ought to be checked against their sources given the issues with this one.

There are other issues with the Critical reception section. The starting sentence is a bit odd, even if it is cited: "On its release, Kiss Me Once received positive critical reviews." Yes, and it received somewhat negative ones, too. The Zaleski one, certainly, and a "C+" score on another is a mediocre grade. The tense varies a bit through the section; it's mostly past tense, but instead of "stated", "stating" is used, and so on. It should stay in the past tense.

In the earlier Furler example, from the Background and production section, I think "confirmed that Furler" would be preferable for "confirmed Furler". The first sentence of that paragraph also has a problem: On May 28, Minogue's 45th birthday, she announced the buzz single "Skirt" and was made available on Beatport on June 24. is saying that Minogue was made available on Beatport, not the "Skirt" single.

Given the prose issues that have been noted above and others that I found while taking a quick look around, the article would profit from a general copyedit. There is significant work needed to elevate this to the "clear and concise" standard required for GAs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know if the nominator is willing or able (life can interfere with WP-editing sometimes) to rework the prose issues at this time - I just would prefer to not keep my Review On Hold (waiting on this requested prose-editing) than maybe a week or so... Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the backlog on the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is about a month, which is really too long to wait for here. As reviewer, it's your decision how long to keep the article on hold; seven days is pretty standard unless significant progress is being made. Incidentally, the prose issues extend even to the caption for the George Michael photo. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * User:CaliforniaDreamsFan has not responded to my points on this page, hasn't edited the article since September, and edited WP once this month. I leaving a notice on their talkpage and am placing this Review On Hold.  If there isn't a response within a week or so I will then have to consider failing the article. Shearonink (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late responses. I'll be honest, I have been busy and it is my apologies for not informing you prior to the review. Having said that, I am having issues with receiving notifications with Wikipedia, hence why you haven't noticed any changes and progression in the articles. I have done as much as I can; majority of the link issues are actually working fine, but I have removed/changed others. I have changed the critical response sections and altered the prose, but that is as much as I could do. If there is any issue just ping me, but if its not up to substantial quality, you may take necessary actions. Cheers, 202.50.252.65 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The AV Club ref states "The unfortunate result is music that drains the personality and nuance from her coquettish, expressive voice." This WP article presently reads "She felt the material "drain[ed]" Minogue's original pop sound," The change more closely hews to the article but am not sure it conveys the meaning of the cited source adequately.   User:BlueMoonset what do you think? Shearonink (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Shearonink, I don't think it does convey the meaning of the cited source. The phrase "original pop sound" is very broad and could mean any number of things; the article is specifically referring to her vocal expression when singing. I'm also concerned that some of the edits didn't improve the prose sufficiently (or occasionally made it worse), or resulted in new questionable claims. For example, the first sentence in Critical reception now claims that the album was reviewed by most music critics, which seems to me to be quite extraordinary. (The Digital Spy source in question mentions five reviews, including its own.) This sentence was apparently already in the lead, and given its lack of support here, it shouldn't be included there either. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly, yeah I do still have some serious concerns about the state of the prose in the article....I fell like I have to start my Review all over again or something... Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

More prose
On my most recent proofreading-readthrough I am finding some of the phrasing in this article to not be stated as cleanly as it could be.
 * Lead:
 * Upon its release, Kiss Me Once received generally favorable reviews from most music critics.
 * I don't think this statement is borne out by the article or by the cited sources.


 * Songs
 * She was booked with Williams for only one day throughout the entire process of the album, leading to only two tracks finished by him.
 * This is incorrect, Minogue worked with Pharrell Williams for two days.
 * "Sexercize", the second of "sex" songs,
 * should be Sexercise, the second of the "sex" songs
 * The final track that represents the "sex" them is "Les Sex",
 * should be The final track that represents the "sex" theme is "Les Sex",
 * which Minogue described her favorite out of the trio set
 * should be which Minogue described as her favorite out of the trio or which Minogue described as her favorite out of the set
 * was aprpeciated by music critics should be was appreciated by music critics


 * Release
 * Released worldwide on a compact disc, the album features 11 tracks with first press issues featured the bonus tracks "Mr. President" and "Sleeping With the Enemy"
 * The tense of the verbs here is a little jarring, mingling past and present, I do understand the why, it's just that they all must be in agreement.
 * should be Released worldwide on a compact disc, the album features 11 tracks with first press issues featuring the bonus tracks "Mr. President" and "Sleeping With the Enemy"


 * Promotion
 * A month prior to the albums release on 14 March 2014 should be A month prior to the album's release on 14 March 2014
 * critical reaction towards the performance was generally negative, mainly aimed towards the choreography and accused her of lip-syncing, which she later denied a day later. :::should be critical reaction towards the performance was generally negative, mainly aimed towards the choreography and accusing her of lip-syncing, which she later denied a day later.
 * The concert tour was a commercial success, which achieved $17 million throughout ticket sales in Europe, and an additional $4 million throughout Australia.
 * should be The concert tour was a commercial success, achieving $17 million throughout ticket sales in Europe, and an additional $4 million throughout Australia.


 * Singles
 * The song received positive reviews from music critics, whom commended its production and sound, though minor criticism was aimed towards the commercial appeal.
 * should be The song received positive reviews from music critics, who commended its production and sound, though minor criticism was aimed towards the commercial appeal.
 * it performed better on the US Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, peaking atop.
 * should be it performed better on the US Billboard Dance Club Songs chart, peaking at [whatever number it peaked at]. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Referencing issues
I have realized that the writer had used a form of "Notes" basically to appear as a type of reference and to me this isn't quite correct. The three instances in the article are: This gives the appearance of using Wikipedia content to reference other Wikipedia content and should probably be adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)