Talk:Scream (Kelis song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your use of non-free content really needs to be improved. File:Kelis - Scream.jpg lacked a license (I have added one) and is too large- 300x300 pixels should be more than enough. The use of File:Kelis - Scream.ogg is legitimate (64kps would be better than 69 kbps) but the copy-paste rationale is not useful- be specific. General phrases like "It is a sample of no more than 30 seconds from a much longer recording" and "may contain part of the song's chorus" are not useful- make the rationale specific to this sample and this article, with reference to what is discussed in the article and what the sample illustrates. The rationale on File:Kelis - Scream (video).jpg is also extremely poor- the copy-paste list of assertions describing the image's purpose is not useful. Again, explain specifically what the image shows and why that needs to be shown, tying it into the article text. Ask yourself whether the image is really needed; don't just add one on autopilot. "There's a video, so I can add a screenshot of it to the article" is not a good way to think.
 * ✅ New cover photo added. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  17:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the sloppy standards of the single cover. As you can see from the image ... I did not upload it but assumed that it was correct. That's an error on my behalf. I've added a comment to the music sample page to try and improve the rational. I'll as improve the file descriptions on the article itself. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the new pic (of the DJ) is adding anything at all- even if free. At the very least, tie it in to the song in the caption. Again, I think it's worth mentioning- are you certain that the music video screenshot is absolutely necessary? There is no "entitlement" to use one; ask yourself whether the article would really be losing much if it wasn't there, and, if not, remove it. We should strive to minimise the amount of non-free content in our articles. J Milburn (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed music video one, but the DJ one is from the commons so there should be no issue, I've modified the caption. If its still not appropriate I'll just outright remove it. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "leg of the singer's" Kelis's, presumably?
 * Done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * "Fedde Le Grand although" comma after "Grand"
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * "features scenes of Kelis is high couture fashion ensembles, neon bodypaint and running on a treadmill through a London estate" This doesn't make sense, and could we have a link for/rephrase of "igh couture fashion ensembles"?
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * "electrorap" half word links don't look good- do we not have an article/section on the genre of electrorap?
 * unfortunately we don't have an article for electrorap. There nearest I could find is electrohop (which is a mixture of electronic music and hip-hop and since rap is a style of hip-hop perhaps that would suffice?). Alternative electro and rap could be linked separately? --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 
 * If we don't cover it, you really need to ask yourself if you want to be mentioning it. J Milburn (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ... removed --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "It was written by Kelis, Jean Baptiste, David Guetta and Roman de Garcez." More on that? When? Lyrics/music? What's it about?
 * I'm afraid I can't clarify it any further. The official album booklet simply lists the four as the writers without any clarification of who is responsible for the instruments, music or lyrics etc. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 
 * Then perhaps note that you're talking about music and lyrics? Do you have any other sources that talk about the lyrics? J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * no other sources distinguish the writing and music hence I changed to say the music and lyrics were written by, as opposed to the song was written by.


 * "The production contains a "blade of blues melody [that] slices in atop a rinky-dink sampled piano." It also has "lots of sonic confusingnes" as the "song evaporates in the middle ... then reassembles and feeds into a staccato spoken-word electroclash midsection."" This is a bit technical. It's rather hard to follow- perhaps attribute the opinion, but only quote indirectly?
 * I've tried to de-technicalise this section and make it easier to understand. I've also introduced hopefully more flow and links. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 
 * Still unclear. Do you mean to link to Rinky Dink? Not clear on what that really means. And what does "sonic sound" mean? Is that not tautological? Link blues/blues melody? I'm sorry, but the line is just meaningless to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-written... is it still unclear? --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "where she reportedly suffered a wardrobe malfunction resulting in her nipple popping out." Rephrase?
 * done (it did sound terribly informal) --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * Does the charting info not belong in next section?
 * yes it probably should, hence I've moved the info around a little. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * "Guetta"?
 * As in the surname of David Guetta. The review just says Guetta. I can add David in front if you'd prefer? --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sarag of BBC Music" Sarag?
 * Apologies... first name missing here.... (resolved) --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "DJ Fedde Le Grand and, said" > "DJ Fedde Le Grand, saying that"
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 


 * "of the 'Consequence of Sound'" What is this, and why is it reliable?
 * "Consequence of Sound (CoS) is a New York and Chicago-based online music publication" similar to Slant magazine. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk] 
 * Lose the quote marks? And perhaps explain briefly in the article what it is? J Milburn (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't close the David Buchanan quote.
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * "Later a 3D version of the video was also released on October 5, 2010." Clumsy
 * fixed --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * "Other scenes were scot in Ibiza, Spain while the overall video was directed by John "Rankin" Wadell." Two phrases seem unrelated]
 * fixed. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * "Robbie Daw of Idolator" What is this? Why is it reliable?
 * Idolator.com is to my knowledge is considered a reliable site. It owned by BuzzMedia and publishes reliabley sourced information. It is (to my knowledge and recollection) considered reliable because the site has team of editors/publishers so there is an editorial process before articles are publishes. Traditionally it has appeared in a number of other GA articles. I can find no discussion about unreliable reporting at WP:RSN.
 * Ok, sure- again, perhaps mention in the article what it is? J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel I get the fullest impression of what the music video actually is. Perhaps give a synopsis before jumping into the quotes?
 * how bout now that I've reworded the section? if not I'll write a synopsis section. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 
 * It reads better, but I really think you need a synopsis before jumping into the quotes. I don't feel the section is written in the best way. J Milburn (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * will write one as we speak. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Inconsistency in the credits section; in some, you say what they are, in some, you say what they do (producer versus production; see what I mean?) Also, mixing is a dablink
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * Are we certain http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/jncg is reliable? Is she a BBC employee?
 * yup. The BBC's music section is all people from the corporation or free-lanced journalists. They post the copy license (by attribution) as they are aware that Wikipedia and other sites will reproduce the information on a regular basis. Do you have some doubt? --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * Can we have a date and a link to Daily Mirror for the Mirror article?
 * yup. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why italicise "Digital Spy"? It's referred to inconsistently in the refs
 * fixed. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is 7digital reliable?
 * I didn't realise a digital retailer had to be considered notable? But if in doubt 7 Digital is strategically linked to HMV and has played a role in HMV's decline as seen here. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 
 * Not notable, reliable. If it's a retailer owned by HMV, I'm happy as to reliability for that sort of info. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the label start with a capital or lowercase W? Inconsistency.
 * resolved --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk] 


 * For ref 8, Vevo could do with a mention/link, and YouTube could be linked?
 * done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not bad overall, and I could certainly see this being promoted soon, but there are some issues. J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A second read through
Ok, you've dealt with everything I raised the first time around, so I'm gonna give this a second look through.


 * You're still using the phrase "sonic-sounding", but now with a rather cryptic link. You do realise that "sonic" means "of or relating to sound"? So it's "sound sounding".
 * removed all mention of sonic sounding because I can't fathom what the reviewer meant either.


 * "a instrument" an
 * fixed


 * The caption on the sample needs updating/rewriting.
 * fixed.


 * "where it was reported that things did not go as planned. According to The Mirror, one of the singer's nipples was left exposed after a small wardrobe malfunction near the end of the performance." Still not quite right... A little too much detail? I don't know.
 * removed the nipple comment.


 * "However Sal" Comma after "however".
 * removed.


 * "['Scream']" Double quotemarks?
 * fixed


 * The lyrics are mentioned briefly in the lead, but not really elsewhere.
 * It's mentioned in the critical reception section in the Consequence of Sound review: "Scream defies its namesake by coming off like a plea for optimism and kindness set to alternating piano and dance beats"


 * Still no real synopsis of the video- you talk about where certain scenes were filmed without talking about the scenes.
 * I've added one... it was being written!


 * Still the credits problem- "production" versus "producer"- consistency needed!
 * Done --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  18:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is coming together nicely, but I need to dash now! Thanks, and sorry about the delay. J Milburn (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You've really gone from one extreme to the other with the music video section- a brief syopsis alongside any production information/reception information is the way to go; right now, it reads a bit like "every quote I can find" then "my description of the video". Sorry, I realise this may sound a little petty. An example of a rather nicely done video section in terms of layout and information contained is this. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not every music video section can be the same, especially with one with so little recognition and content. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  12:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm I have to agree with Cprice here. GAs should be based on the quality of the articles not the quality of other GAs. You're concern previously was that the music video section did not make it clear the content of the video. So I created a background section noting where the video was filmed, its concept etc and the one peice of reception that I could find. The synopsis then describes the video scene by scene. There isn't really much else that could be said about the video. There's no further details or reception to add. I don't see the issue :S &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the way the section is set out, not the information included. I linked to the other article as an example of an article in which it was better formatted. A scene-by-scene description is not really needed- a discussion of the background, followed by a description of the video, followed by a discussion of the video's reception is probably best. Right now, it seems to be "every quote I could find" followed by "an intricate description of the video", which isn't the best style. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made the synopsis like the one for Get Me Bodied and Deja Vu. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * well I've never had such issues with GA before... see When Love Takes Over, Forever and a Day etc. but if your still insistant... I'll consider revisiting the music video section and mock up a second version more like the example article you've created... &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article, I just seem to remember reviewing it at some point. This format may be suitable in other articles, I don't know, but it doesn't really work here. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick Comments: I have not read any of the above review to see if these concerns have been addressed already. I believe larger dashes (–) should be included in the "Credits" section. Also, I am not certain the image of Fedde Le Grand is relevant/necessary just because a comparison was made to his works. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been over a month now. Maybe it's time to either pass or fail this article? I would say pass... Pancake (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are issues outstanding, there are issues outstanding. It doesn't matter whether it's been a month or an hour- leaving an issue does not make it go away... J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The only issue if I'm correct is the music video section? Which we are in disagreement with... Two other editors unrelated to the article (Cprice1000 and PancakeMistake) seem to think the article is ready to pass. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  00:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're in disagreement? I've really got better things to be doing than debating the merits of this format versus a remotely useful one. Your description opens with "The treadmill scenes were filmed at the Wendling Estate and nearby Bacton Tower in London, UK.[17][18]" What scenes? You follow with "Robbie Daw, from the music news website Idolator, later described the as an collection of fashion snapshots and ensembles. "There are various shots of Kelis in some OTT fashion ensembles (huge fake eyelashes, lace winged hat, chains) with a recurring image of her in a human body suit, jogging in place."[19] The video also features "Kelis dancing in the dark as black lights reflect off her day-glo body paint".[20]" Erm, alright? If you want to describe the video, describe it. Oh, you do. Elsewhere. Welcome to redundancy, which you will find is redundant. I have pointed to a music video section which is set out in a logical way, and I can't see why that format does not suit this article, or what you honestly think is so good about this format. Seriously, just sit there and read it. Does it really come across as a "well written", "clear and concise" article? Good writing is not about sticking in as many quotes and possible, and a synopsis does not OMG NEED to be in a separate section and ridiculously long. Furthermore, the dash issue is worth looking into- I don't care myself, but it's in the MoS for some reason. J Milburn (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A tad bit of an over-reaction. You asked if the music video section would be better written as the example you showed me ... I evaluated the merits of that section against the one I wrote and felt that the one I wrote served the purpose of describing the background/concept and some of the technical details as well as describing the contents of the video. Admittedly I haven't been able to spend a great deal of time working on this article compared to other GAs I've done in the past but to be fair the information both a technical and detailed level is much sparser with this GA. I've done through an changed the dashing in the other section as suggested. With regards to the music video section I will revisit it once again and see what I can do... I genuinely don't there's that much of an issue but I concede that improvements may be able to be made. Seriously dude... I wasn't questioning your judgment... I was just noting that this is a GA not an FA so the standards are distinctly different. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  <sup style="color:black;">[talk]  01:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? Been a couple weeks since the last comment. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)