Talk:LoveGame/GA1

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

Reviewer: -- Will C  13:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Would be nice if a link would be provided to where the cover image was taken from instead of just the website name to verify that is exactly where it came from.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Provided in the file page. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Would be nice if a link would be provided to where the cover image was taken from instead of just the website name to verify that is exactly where it came from.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Provided in the file page. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Lead
 * Infobox
 * I know this isn't done alot and not really needed, but I feel it certainly helps. Since the information isn't sourced in the lead, and some isn't mentioned, it would be nice if everything had a source.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD information which is sourced elsewhere in the article need not be sourced in the lead (which includes the infobox). --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a caption feature available? I feel it would be nice addition.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Writing and inspiration
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Music and lyrics
 * Reads just fine.......however, makes no sense to me. I'm a non-fan of music. Of course I like music, but what I'm trying to say it is too universal (music universe). Explaining what the hell is meant by "It is set in the time signature of common time and is composed in the key of B minor with a moderate tempo of 104 beats per minute.[7] Gaga's vocal range spans from B3 to G5.[7] It follows in the chord progression of Am–Dm–C–Am–Dm–C in the first two verse and chorus while progressing as Am–Dm–Am–Dm in the intermediate verse before the final chorus.[7] The song was given remix treatment one of which featured rocker Marilyn Manson in the vocals." would be very very very helpful. Supposed to keep articles universal, for fans and non-fans. I've dealt with problems like this in wrestling articles for at least a year. Trust me, once learning the correct balance of explanation and self-explanatory, the articles improve vastly. I see the links are provided, but just giving a bit of what each is, so readers can understand without having to link swim, makes it more like an encyclopedia imo.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Every other GA or FA articles on songs has this much of minimum information regarding the composition of the song and is an essential component for a music related article to be GA as per WP:SONGSBODY. I don't think anything overworldly is expressed here or any fancruft has been written. See examples like "Irreplaceable", "4 Minutes", "Cool", "Poker Face". --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't about fancruft it is more about being out of universe, see WP:IN-U. Yes, IN-U is about fiction but the lesson taught there works just as well here. It is written in a context that only someone who has studied music can understand. An outside fan who only wants to learn about the song can't understand what "Gaga's vocal range spans from B3 to G5." translate too. They are left sitting and wondering, with a WTF! look on their face. A bit of explanation on what this is will help that. Not a giant paragraph on what B3 and G5 are, more along the lines of what happened. Going from B3 to G5 is?, etc. I've encountered problems like this in wrestling PPVs, where naming a move that was performed would leave a reader wondering what happened because they don't know what a Styles Clash is. It stops the flow of reading for an outsider and hurts the overall article because an encyclopedia is meant to inform on all levels, and in this case it only does to a certain extent imo.-- Will C  09:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the reason why they are wiki-linked to corresponding articles which can help them understand it better. And it is indeed very basic musical knowledge. More than 90% will know what a beat rate is,; they might not exactly know what B3 is, but they will know that it is a musical note. After that for more clarity they can indeed go to the wikilinked article. I still don't see how what is there in the paragraph is complete WP:IN-U. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki-links are nothing more than an excuse, certainly when the problems don't have links. 90% isn't fact, it is a guess, it could be 80, 70, 10, 15, etc. The article should tell it here in a small bit of explanation. I'm reading the article and don't understand this section at all and I've taken music lessons. To understand this all, a reader would have to search through all these other jargon laden articles. In the end, they forget what they were even on here for, and an encyclopedia isn't supposed to confuse someone imo. A reader doesn't want to read about B Minor, they want to read about LoveGame. Sending them to that page, when it could be explained like so "Gaga's vocal range spans from a high tone of B3 to a low tone of G5." (I'm guessing here). Understand? Leaving a reader dumbfounded isn't good work imo. They understand her vocals went from here to here. The section is filled with music jargon terms and written in the style only a music fan could understand, that is why it is IN-U. I wouldn't bring this up if it wasn't a big problem imo. The rest of the article is fine, except this. I don't see how an article can be good, if it leaves a reader confused.-- Will C  23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A rephrasing is something that can be definitely done instead of deleting the whole section. I'll do it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * "The Dave Aude remix of "LoveGame" was also praised." This wasn't mentioned anywhere above. If some remix isn't mentioned beforehand, why mention it was praised?
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Phoenix music editor Daniel Brockman said that "with production help from DJ Space Cowboy [...] Gaga ups the ante in terms of catchy song writing and sheer high-in-the-club-banging-to-the-beat abandon." " Same problem as above. Who is DJ Space Cowboy? What did he do? Why did he do it? etc....-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Chart performance
 * "After two weeks "LoveGame" moved to position five becoming Gaga's third top five song on this chart.[18] The song has so far reached number one on the Hot Dance Club Songs and became Gaga's third number one song on the Pop Songs chart." Ref for 18 doesn't mention that being her third. "So far" seems speculative and almost weasel. Lets not try to say it will go higher or anything. Lets speak in the now. Best to re-word to "After two weeks, "LoveGame" moved to position five on the chart.[18] The song reached number one on the Hot Dance Club Songs and became Gaga's third number one song on the Pop Songs chart."-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Subsequently "LoveGame" climbed to a peak of five making her third straight top five single there." Ref doesn't say it is her third. Possibly true, like the one above, but unless it is backed up by a ref, it is OR. Change to "Subsequently, "LoveGame" climbed to a peak of five."-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Music video
 * "Since it was very rare to ban videos in MTV, Samer al Marzouki, channel head of MTV Arabia, commented" → "Since it was very rare to ban videos on MTV, head of MTV Arabia Samer al Marzouki commented"-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Live performances
 * Hopefully you can tell me, but for some reason I just don't see why mentioning how she performs the song is notable. I can understanding listing the places other than her tours that she has performed it, but play-by-play on her performance I just don't see any use. That stuff is more set for a music-wiki.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The third party notability regarding the singer's performances, clothes, fashion etc is what makes them notable. Every performance is different in terms of these above mentioned words and has received wide-spread media coverage. It is a similar case like the GA songs of the Madonna project, their third party notability is what makes them notable to be included in the article. Its not as if a scene by scene account is given, just a brushing in one line. I don't see any problem with that. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Track listings and formats
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Charts and sales
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Charts
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sales and certifications
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Chart procession and succession
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Release history
 * Seems fine-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * References
 * What makes jbhifionline.com.au and Femalefirst.co.uk reliable?-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removd. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * External links
 * Just giving Lady Gaga.com should do just fine. Saying it is the official site seems overdone. I feel it is a time commonsense takes over.-- Will C  09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Of course. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)