Talk:Long Way to Go (Gwen Stefani and André 3000 song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) ) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As a fan of Gwen Stefani, I will definitely grab this for a review. I will have my comments up by either the end of today or tomorrow. From just a quick look, I am impressed with the work put into an album track so I look forward to reading it more in-depth and learning more about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * For the infobox, remove the link about the genre (electronic).
 * I would break up the first sentence as follows: (“Long Way to Go” is a song recorded by American singer-songwriter Gwen Stefani, featuring vocals by rapper André 3000. The song appears as the closing track on Stefani’s debut solo studio album Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (2004).) I think separating the first sentence into two and making it somewhat more direct would be more beneficial.
 * Rephrase “solely produced the track” as it reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I would say “was the sole producer of the track”, but this is just a suggestion and you can keep the original wording if you feel it is best.
 * You do not have to use André 3000’s full name in the first sentence of the second paragraph since he was introduced in the first paragraph.
 * Remove the commas around The Love Below and putt the album’s release year in parenthesis after it with a comma at the end of that. Should read like “studio album The Love Below (2003, Stefani”
 * Remove “decided to” and just say “finalized a reworked version of the song to be included on Stefani’s album” Your current structure of the sentence is a little too wordy and can be trimmed down with my above suggestion.
 * Remove “but cannot be heard in the song until the closing outro.” and replace with “in its closing outro.” Again, your prior construction is a little too wordy.
 * Remove the transition “also” in front of King as it is unnecessary.
 * Restructure the sentence with King not being credit as it reads awkwardly and lacks clarity. What do you mean by “his name is mentioned several times throughout”?
 * I do not think the transition “Musically” is necessary, but if you decide to keep it, put a comma after it.
 * Remove “the inclusion of its” and just say “and also for it electronic production”
 * Remove “during the middle section of the show”. Unnecessary and vague detail for the lead.
 * Move the definition of the Harajuku Girls to the live performances as I feel it is too detailed for the lead. You can change the sentence about Stefani performing the track on tour to “Stefani performed the track during her 2005 Harajuku Lovers Tour alongside her back-up dancers, the Harajuku Girls.” to keep a reference to them in the lead and show you will be discussing them in the body of the article.

Background and lyrics
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * I would remove the "and lyrics" part and just say "Background" as you are discussing the song's recording/development, its lyrics, and its production so "Background" alone would better reflect that you are talking about multiple aspects of the song.
 * Change the alt to not be self-referential. To my understanding, the alt should be more a general statement about the image. I would also make this upright.
 * Clarify “upcoming studio albums” as “then upcoming studio albums” or something similar to represent that they are not longer “upcoming”
 * Restructure the second sentence as it reads very awkwardly and choppy.
 * Other than Stefani being the featured artist, were there any other differences between the demo and the released version? This could be made obvious once you correct the second sentence about its initial recording, but right now, the language is pretty vague. How was the track “slightly different” for instance?
 * Separate the first sentence of the second paragraph into two sentences. You can do something like the following “Lyrically, the song discusses prejudices against interracial dating and the beauty of love. The meaning is made clear in the lyric: “Beauty is beauty / Whether it is black or white.”
 * While the second sentence of the second paragraph is true, it looks more like original research the way it is currently phrased. Either find a better source or remove.
 * Keep Metro Lyrics in the footnote and as an external link, but remove it as a source. For the same reasons as the above comment.
 * While the Vibe source is excellent, the way you use it is very misleading. The source is discussing all the songs that sample the speech and does not directly identify Stefani or any aspect about the song’s production other than its inclusion on a playlist. I would integrate the following quote from the article. (“Yet the storied speech has made its mark on music artists, too. Some, like Kendrick Lamar, The Game, Nas and J. Cole, have name dropped the civil rights hero on songs. Others have lifted his words for their own tracks.“) and then try to find other articles/research to support the statement about synthesizer and production (which is important). *For the Vibe quote, you could say something like: Vibe described Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech “I Have A Dream” as having “made its mark on music artists,” with some artists like Stefani having “lifted his word for their own tracks”) Keep the links for King and his speech and make a link for Vibe.
 * Just as a suggestion for possible expansion, are there any sources out there discussing which parts of the speech Stefani and 3000 include? It would help the section be more specific.
 * Hmm. I mean, I'm pretty sure I haven't come across an article regarding what exact words are said, but anyone can listen to the song. If I stated something about what was being said, I don't know if I could back my words up with a source, so it wouldn't be exactly reliable from me.
 * That makes perfect sense. There's enough information in the production section now about the speech so I feel any other information would not be necessary and would be repetitive. Great job with this section! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a better source you can use for this section (http://thoughtcatalog.com/marc-robisch/2015/01/tbt-review-gwen-stefanis-love-angel-music-baby/) It discusses the song's lyrics and its production that I think would greatly help this section.
 * This source can also be used to improve the sections on the lyrics (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/28/entertainment/la-et-ms-notable-uses-martin-luther-king-march-washington-speech-20130828)
 * This source from The Harvard Crimson refers to the sampling of "I Have A Dream" as "crazy shit" so you might find this helpful for this article somewhere (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/12/7/new-music-gwen-stefani-the-sweet/)

Critical reception
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * I would make this image “upright”
 * Say “some music critics” to clarify the meaning. “Others” can stay as it is now.
 * Change “a very interesting and well-produced song.” to a more accurate representation of what was being praised. The above wording sounds like it is coming from a fan and not a critic. What aspects of the song were identified as "interesting" or why was the song considered "interesting"? What was praised about the production? Be more specific and avoid vague language.
 * Restructure the sentence about Jason Damas as the use of the quote is very clumsy and awkwardly placed.
 * Remove comma after Sylvester’s quote
 * The Music Times source could be used in the “Background and lyrics” section as well as it discusses the production and structure of the song. If you did this, you would have to rephrase the sentence here, but I think it would make the article stronger.
 * Clarify meaning of “mixed to positive”. I would change to just “mixed”
 * Either clarify the writer of the article from Traxionary or say a review. A publication can be identified by itself as doing a review.
 * Is Traxionary a reliable source?
 * Although I'm not 100% aware of Traxionary's work, I think for the sake of an article's section focusing on other's opinions, that this source's inclusion would benefit the article.
 * Makes sense to me. I will allow the site to be used. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Live performances
✅ ✅ ✅
 * For the first sentence, just say “Stefani performed “Long Way to Go” during Harajuku Lovers” as it is far more direct. Also remove the reference to “Danger Zone” as it seems more like padding to this section. What was important about the song being performed after “Danger Zone”? They appear that way on the album so I don’t find this particularly remarkable or noteworthy.
 * I am pretty sure YouTube links are discouraged as sources (I am new here so feel free to correct me if I am wrong). I would remove these parts and replace with critical reviews. I would start by looking through reviews of the concert to see if anyone talked about the performance of the song.
 * You mention the Harajuku Girls in the lead, but not in the actual section. Remember that the lead should be a comprehensive outline/overview of the entire article.

Track listings and formats

 * Remove the bullet points from the sampler and just number with the “A1” through “B3” if possible. The bullets break the consistency of the section. Keep the numbering as it appears on the sampler though. If it is impossible due to formatting issues, then it is fine as it currently stands.
 * Funny you'd mention this. If you glance through early versions of the article, you may see my experimentation with this section. I promise I tried removing the bullet marks from earlier, but it completely ruined the format listing. I visited other articles with similar sampler listings and they used this format

Credits and personnel

 * Is King cited as “additional songwriting” in the linear notes? If so, that is a very odd identification.
 * He is in fact not. That is why I included the [a] note.

Release history
✅
 * I am not sure if this section is allowed for an article on an album track as it will inevitably just be a repeat of the release history of the album. The articles for Lady Gaga’s song Teeth and Madonna’s song Illuminati do not include this section so I would say remove this. It would make sense as the song was never released independently as a single, which the section somewhat implies if you look at it without reading the text.

Final comments

 * Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about my comments. This article does need work, but it can definitely reach GA. The article was very interesting and made enjoy the song a lot more.

Additional comments
✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
 * You have done an excellent job with the article. I am very impressed with the research. I just have a couple quick questions and comments and once they are addressed, this should be an easy and quick pass. The article made me appreciate the song a lot more. It would have been interesting if it was released as a single just to see the music video and how the public would have reacted to it. My comments mainly deal with the second paragraph of the "Background" section and should be relatively easy to address. Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain about the use of "jokes" in the background section as it does not come from a critical source and seems more like original research to me. Why did you choose the word? (It may be obvious and appropriate for this section so I would just like to know a little bit more of the reasoning behind it).
 * I guess I chose that wording because it doesn't seem like it's meant to be taken seriously. I can't think of a better word to be placed here, but that's just me. Do you have a suggestion for a better word; if so, I'll do a switcharoo. Carbrera (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain about the phrase "synchronized to several beats created by a CutMaster Swiff synthesizer". While this may be true, it is not supported by the source and reads more like original research to me. I would replaced the phrase with the following (set to "unsynchronized M.I.A. like beats") as that is taken directly from the source and discusses the same part of the song. I would also link M.I.A. If you would like to keep synthesizer part, I would find a source to back it up.
 * The AllMusic link in the last sentence of the "Background" section is not necessary so delete it.
 * Link No Doubt in the Reception section
 * I will allow the YouTube links as I feel you will not have much luck finding other information on its live performance.

Verdict

 * Thank you for your quick responses. You have done a very excellent job with this article (particularly for an album track that did not receive a lot of coverage) and it was a very informative and enjoyable read. I look forward to reading your work on here in the future. ✅
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: