Talk:Waiting for Tonight/GA1

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. Expect initial comments within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's start with the infobox, lead, and "background".....

Infobox

 * File:Waiting for Tonight.png has an appropriate FUR

Lead

 * I'd include some mention of how Maria Christensen was a member of 3rd Party (i.e. "recorded for Christensen's girl group 3rd Party")
 * "Ric Wake and Richie Jones provided production for" → "Ric Wake and Richie Jones produced"
 * Belgium is missing from the list of nations it reached the top 10
 * "with the most recent being the Dance Again World Tour" → "most recently at the Dance Again World Tour"
 * ✅ — Ar  re

Background

 * I feel this could safely be merged into the "Writing and composition" section since it discusses the writing process
 * HitQuarters doesn't mention which album 3rd Party made this track for, but I'm not sure it's really necessary detail anyway; let's just say it was originally made for that band. While I personally already knew it's from On the 6, that album isn't mentioned either and though I did find support for her album here, we'll need a separate citation for single count.
 * ✅: Are you suggesting that the 3rd Party album title be removed from the lead as well? — Ar  re
 * Yes; it's not the focus here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

More to come later..... Snuggums (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Writing and composition

 * I'm not sure if File:Waiting for Tonight.ogg provides any benefit, but either way is too long at 25 seconds per WP:SAMPLE when the song is 246 seconds (4 minutes 6 seconds), and the maximum length permitted is 10% of the song's duration or 30 seconds (depending on which is shorter)
 * Beginning two consecutive sentences with "Additional" is repetitive, and try using the active voice instead of passive. An example of this would be "Richie Jones also produced the song and arranged it with Wake while providing additional programming and arranging along with 'Young' Dave Scheuer."
 * "Background vocals were performed by Christensen, Jane Barrett, and Margaret Dorn"..... again, active is better than passive here
 * "the production was coordinated by David Barrett"..... same as before
 * Idolator mentions dance-pop, but not "uptempo" or any duration. However, you can use a cassette/CD/download citations used in "Formats and track listings" for how long the track runs.
 * Something much stronger than PopCrush is needed for any details on opening or percussion; it's a godawful publication with questionable-at-best editorial oversight and shouldn't be used per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES.
 * "Rich groove" and "club banger" are vague descriptions; try finding something that gives more detail
 * I've removed the PopCrush source and added more description of the genre. Is that adequate enough or is more detail needed? Also, I'm not that great with uploading audio files, but is it necessary to shorten the sample (24.6 seconds is essentially 25) to exactly less than 10%? Or do you suggest removing it altogether? — Ar  re  01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the sample altogether as it doesn't enhance the article in any discernible way. The genre description looks much better now, just remove the vague "rich groove" and "club banger" bits (they're not very informative descriptions). <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 01:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Ar  re  02:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception and impact

 * "'Waiting for Tonight' is considered by various sources to be the best song of Lopez's career"..... it would be better to just say "'Waiting for Tonight' is the best song of Lopez's career according to *insert publication names*"
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "It received universal acclaim from music critics with them complimenting her vocals and its production" isn't in the given citation, and a claim like this needs to be properly referenced to avoid WP:SYNTH.
 * I've removed most of this but left "acclaim"; this source noted that "Critics went wild for it", is that enough to support this or should the sentence be removed altogether? — Ar  re
 * It would probably be safer to say something along the lines of "high praise" or "positive reviews" unless you can find something more explicitly stating acclaim <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * For quotation marks used within quotes, use the singular mark of ' instead of ", so the song's tile from the "we can all admit that" LA Times quote should use that (it's supposed to look like "we can all admit that 'Waiting for Tonight' played at our respective millennium celebrations")
 * I'm not convinced PopSugar is a quality reference, so let's remove its quote
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Chicago Tribune is dead; fix or remove this URL
 * I've found the same article but it's from a different publication; do I leave the Chicago Tribune source and just use this url, or change it from Chicago Tribune to St. Louis Post-Dispatch? — Ar  re
 * Change to St. Louis Post-Dispatch in this case <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Since "hit" on its own is a rather informal term for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia, perhaps "breakout club hit" should be in quotation marks
 * VH1 is also dead, and also should be repaired/removed
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "Billboard" in "this Billboard hit" should be italicized as it refers to Billboard (magazine)
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Taking into account Spintendo's comments below on the album review David Brown from Entertainment Weekly wrote, let's try something like "While David Browne of Entertainment Weekly was critical of On the 6, he felt that 'Waiting for Tonight' was one of its better tracks and 'worthy of a dance-floor diva'."
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "infectious tune" isn't very informative, and since Crosswalk.com doesn't give any other detail on the track, we might as well delete this
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Given Spintendo's notes on AllMusic, I'd change "it elevated the song's parent album On the 6" to "the track elevated its parent album On the 6" after looking more closely at the review
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * It's probably worth noting whether this track one its Grammy nomination
 * I added this, but is an additional source needed for this? — Ar  re
 * Yes because this doesn't say who won. If possible, try to get one that mentions both winner and nominees. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Max TV is dead, and I'm not sure how legit the publication is anyway, so let's just delete that
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Sampling details belong in articles for the other songs mentioned, not here
 * ✅: Removed — Ar  re

I'll be back with more in the future..... <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Chart performance
✅ — Ar  re ✅ — Ar  re ✅ — Ar  re ✅: Added a new ref. — Ar  re
 * MAJOR PROBLEM: I find nothing on Austria, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, or the UK. You don't necessarily have to go into as much detail on these as the nations already listed, but these should at the very least be mentioned by name.
 * This only talks about Australian chart positioning; you'll need a separate citation for the ARIA certification
 * It's worth noting how the song was certified Gold in Belgium
 * I see nothing here or here even mentioning a New Zealand certification
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but all I can really discern from Finland's reference is that it peaked at number 8
 * When I open the link, it shows that it charted for three weeks. — Ar  re


 * Neilsen Music Canada mentions nothing about this track
 * For some reason I can't find a source yet verifying that the song peaked at #13 in Canada. I'm not sure if you see the same thing but when I look here I can't find the song. I'll have to search for another source. — Ar  re
 * Since Billboard didn't start tracking Canada's song performance until June 2007, you'll have to look through RPM for Canadian charts (which was used from 1964 to 2000). <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

✅: Corrected. — Ar  re
 * While the link used for a French certification in this section is dead, I came across a gold listing elsewhere rather than silver
 * For something that more explicitly notes the main Billboard Hot 100 peak date and position of this track, https://www.billboard.com/articles/list/6091769/jennifer-lopez-top-10-songs-biggest-billboard-hits (what you've got simply states it reached the position)
 * I'm not clear on what you mean? — Ar  re
 * There's a difference between something saying a song has reached a new height and saying that it was the song's peak. In any case, you've now got it sorted out. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ — Ar  re ✅: Can't find any other sources other than for the UK sales. — Ar  re
 * See above note regarding informality of "hit" (perhaps use "ninth most successful song", "ninth most successful track", "ninth most successful entry")
 * I would include any known sales figures

Production and synopsis

 * What benefit does File:Waiting for Tonight (Music video).jpg offer aside from perhaps decoration?
 * The lasers depicted are mentioned quite a few times in the music video section, they're part of why the video is recognizable. Should it be moved to the reception section instead? — Ar  re
 * In that case, I would note their prominence in its caption <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's relevant when The Cell came out
 * ✅: Removed year — Ar  re


 * Did this shoulder burn have any major affect on the video's production and/or release?
 * ✅: Not that I can think of. Removed it. — Ar  re


 * "Two versions of the music video were released, the original and one featuring the Hex Hector remix of the song"..... the original one existing is already obvious, so I don't think you need to mention that or the count in this case. I'd note how the remix's video was included on her The Reel Me EP. It's also better to mention the remix video after details on the original one.
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * We've got a dead link that needs to be repaired/replaced
 * ✅: Couldn't find a replacement and it wasn't essential so I remove it. — Ar  re


 * "concern" seems like a more appropriate term than "problem" in "the Y2K problem"
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Seems odd to cite details on what happens in the original video, but not the remix video
 * The remix video has essentially the same premise aside from different shots, the new scenes of Lopez dancing and the strobe effect. How would you suggest this be elaborated on further? — Ar  re  03:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen the remix as well as the original, so I know what you mean, and the description is fine as it is. Just was surprised that there's no citations describing that in much detail. What I'm now curious about production-wise is how its new shots were mixed in. Perhaps you could have separate "production" and "synopsis" sections and elaborate on the remixed edition's creation. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception and impact

 * Not saying Bustle is the worst thing in the world, but I'd use a stronger source if available, especially for the MTV rotation bit
 * I couldn't find a better source for the heavy rotation on MTV part, but added something about it being the most-played on VH1 at one point. Is Bustle adequate enough for the first part? — Ar  re  04:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If nothing else is available, then this will do (at least until something better can be found) <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * International Business Times doesn't really say much on this video, let alone suggest it brings attention to her physique, and Page Six (aka New York Post) is garbage that doesn't belong as a reference in the first place. We're gonna need better citations.
 * ✅: I just removed them. — Ar  re


 * Not sure if it's just because I lack a New York subscription, but I'm getting nothing from its link
 * ✅: Removed. — Ar  re


 * Yahoo! is also dead; please replace/repair this
 * ✅: I found the same article from a different source (Cision) so I just replaced Yahoo! with that. — Ar  re


 * Styleite link isn't working, and I'm not sure how credible this publication is anyway, so just remove that
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * If VH1 can't be repaired here, then I'd remove it
 * ✅: Fixed. — Ar  re


 * "late-night wilderness party motif of Jennifer Lopez's classic "Waiting for Tonight" clip"..... see my previous comment on quotation marks within a quote
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * MTV needs replacement/repairment
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * I'm not convinced the comparison to The Matrix Reloaded is worth including when Slant doesn't really elaborate on any similarities
 * ✅: Removed. — Ar  re


 * Don't use BuzzFeed; it's an unprofessional site full of user-generated content
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Another dead MTV link needs to be replaced/repaired
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "Billboard" in "Billboard Music Awards" needs italics as it refers to the magazine, and the Best Pop Video Clip award from that is missing a citation
 * ✅: I'm not sure about the Best Pop Clip part, I can't find anything on it so I removed it. — Ar  re

The article has improved, but the issues I'm seeing now have me worried. Thankfully the review is almost complete. Next batch will probably be the last when I get the chance to examine it. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of other minor things to this section. — Ar  re  04:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Live performances

 * Avoid using TV.com since it's full of user-generated content; find something with better editorial oversight
 * I just cited the episode, as I couldn't find an appropriate source yet. Is that okay for now? — Ar  re


 * Only "Thursday night" is used here, and it's a relatively vague description that doesn't exactly suggest any specific date (keep in mind there are at least four Thursdays in each month), so September 6, 2007 seems to have come out of nowhere. It might be better in this case to just say that the performance was broadcast on September 7, 2007.
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "This was her first tour" is better suited for the tour article; focus more here on what she and Anthony did while performing the track on their tour
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Commentary for the 2009 New Year's Eve performance should be cited by New York Daily News as opposed to People as noted below when People was basing its report off of what the Daily News reported. Same goes for The Daily Telegraph.
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "Lopez performed 'Waiting for Tonight' as part of a medley of her hits"..... again, "hit" is a rather informal term on its own, and perhaps we could give other song names here
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Don't use Daily Mail per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "Lopez wore a glittery bodysuit for her performance of the song at Mohegan Sun's 15th anniversary celebration concert; green lasers swept across the arena ceiling as her dancers 'whirled' around her" is a rather long sentence. I'd split this after the "concert" part, and maybe go with something like "It featured dancers that 'whirled' around the singer while green lasers swept across the arena ceiling".
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "her European leg at her concert in Italy"..... a concert or one of its concerts would work better
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * "performed the track along with several other hits"..... see previous comments
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Let's give more detail for the Dubai World Cup performance, maybe with critical commentary and/or detail on what she did while singing the song
 * I've searched but can't find anything from a reliable source elaborating on her Waiting for Tonight performance at the Dubai World Cup. — Ar  re  06:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "since the release of On the 6; Andrew Hampp from Billboard"..... these should be separate sentences, and I'd personally have a period after One the 6
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Again, avoid Daily Fail (aka Daily Mail)
 * ✅: Removed. — Ar  re


 * "At her Las Vegas residency show Jennifer Lopez: All I Have which commenced in January 2016"..... when it began is better for the residency show article
 * ✅: Removed. — Ar  re

Usage in media

 * Only two entries total? I find that surprising for one of J. Lo's most popular songs.
 * I added a couple of things but couldn't find much for this section. — Ar  re  04:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

More will follow in the future..... <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Formats and track listings

 * I know that "Spanglish" is a common term for something that includes both Spanish and English, and can clearly see it's part of the title for one of the remixes, but unless that's also part of the other remix titles (which I can't tell for certain), it seems more appropriate to mention the languages as separate terms in such instances
 * I can't be sure about this, as I wasn't the one who did this section, but when I check here for instance "Spanglish" is included in the title. Which ones are you suggesting should be changed? — Ar  re  04:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Every instance except for the "Pablo's Miami Mix Spanglish Radio Edit" remix <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So should it read "[Spanish and English Version]" or just "[Spanish and English]"? Is that what you mean? — Ar  re  04:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply "[Spanish and English]" if anything or "[contains Spanish and English]" <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. — Ar  re  05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Credits and personnel

 * It seems like J. Lo's vocals are missing from the credits for both the English and Spanish editions
 * ✅: Added. — Ar  re

Charts

 * Since the "Canadian Hot 100" didn't exist until 2007, you'll need an RPM listing for its peak in Canada
 * I found this, but I'm not sure if it's the singles chart in Canada, it says "survey". I also found this (p. 112) saying it entered the charts at #14, but it credits SoundScan. This same chart says it reached #13 the previous week here (p40). Should I use this one? — Ar  re  05:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nielsen SoundScan also tracks for Canada, so no issue for their accuracy. What you want is Canada Top Singles from RPM (click here for an example of what it has looked like). After examining some of the late 1999/early 2000 "Top Singles" entries for this song, it looks like that first link you gave was its peak of #2, the layout was redesigned over time to include "survey" in its heading, and it first entered the previous week at #4. The Nielsen reports you've linked seem to be chartings from later weeks. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For Scotland, I recommend using a more permanent URL rather than one that changes weekly (you'll have to insert this manually, though)
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * Something in the UK url isn't working right; I think this is what you meant
 * ✅ — Ar  re


 * It looks like this was actually at number 986 or 853 on Australia's "All Time Chart", but this seems to be more of a personal opinion anyway instead of an indicator of commercial performance, so I'd remove that listing entirely
 * ✅ — Ar  re

Certifications

 * Looks good

Release history

 * It looks like the Austrian CD release was on October 27, 1999, not November 15th, also Germany and Switzerland would need separate citations as this link is just for Austria

Overall

 * Prose: Mostly good, just needs some touching up now
 * Referencing: Some of the references aren't properly formatted, there are subpar publications used, and not quite everything is supported by attributed citations
 * Coverage: Since RPM charts haven't been implemented yet, it's a bit hard to say whether it addresses the key aspects of commercial performance. Also, there should be something in the article body (not just the lead) discussing its initial release  along with single count from On the 6. Something like when the singer and/or her label announced its release would be nice to add if that can be found.
 * I can't find anything on an announcement of the single, but I have just found sources (Billboard) stating that the song's chart peak in the US was based on radio airplay alone and it was released to retail on a limited basis. Should this info go into the chart section? Would you suggest changing it to "Release and commercial performance" or something like that, and mentioning the previous singles from On the 6 as well as the release dates that are available (i.e. Austria)? I'm not sure which other section this could go in. — Ar  re  05:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Restructuring sounds fine, and while you're free to mention previous singles from the album, the really important part is to note its single count. Another thought (not a deal-breaker, but a definite plus) would be noting how she and/or Sony decided to release it. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 05:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutrality: Seems fine
 * Stability: Nothing of concern
 * Media: All set here
 * Verdict: I'll put this on hold. You have seven days to address the remaining issues. Feel free to ask if you have any questions about my above concerns. <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 02:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * UPDATE I've now found something usable noting album count (much better than nothing) and implemented it accordingly as well as the Grammy results. Those were my only major concerns. After a bit of reworking, this seems good to go. Now passing! <b style="color:#009900">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification needed

 * A quote under the heading Critical reception and impact states the following:
 * AllMusic's Heather Phares praised the Spanish version of the song, "Una Noche Más", for emphasizing Lopez's "distinctive heritage", stating that → it ← elevated the song's parent album On the 6 from "a star's vanity project to an individual but accessible work of pop songcraft by a widely talented performer".
 * → What is the word it referring to — Ms. Lopez's Spanish version of her song, or Ms. Lopez's "distinctive heritage"?
 * The music video was → famed ← for its thematic depiction of a Y2K dance party.
 * → Please clarify the word famed.

Quotation issues

 * The article has a strong reliance on quotations and reviews, e.g., WP:QUOTEFARM. For example, in the passage below taken from the Writing and composition heading — a discussion on song mechanics segues into review quotes:
 * It follows a chord progression B♭m–A♭ 6 –Fm 7 –G♭ maj7 . The instrumentation of "Waiting for Tonight" consists of a piano and guitar. The song has a tempo of 125 beats per minute. Aaron Beierle of DVD Talk commented that "Waiting for Tonight" hits a "rich groove." BET called the song a "club banger".
 * → Even in the section devoted to how the song is scored musically, the urge to use review quotes cannot be resisted. The article's over-reliance on them is an important issue that deserves additional discussion.

Neutral tone

 * Another issue is the coloring of the reviews that are given. In this instance, a negative review is spun into a positive one:
 * <U>Material from David Brown's review, chosen to be included/quoted in the Wikipedia article</U></SMALL>
 * David Browne of Entertainment Weekly, in a review of On the 6, gave a positive review of the song, stating that "[from On the 6] At least one track, the club-hopping 'Waiting for Tonight,' is worthy of a dance-floor diva, and the inevitable remix should sound even better".


 * <U>Material from David Brown's review NOT chosen to be included/quoted in the article</U></SMALL>
 * "As soon as Lopez opens her mouth, though, all this advance work falls by the wayside. On record, the husky-voiced voluptuousness that has become Lopez’s trademark in films like Out of Sight simply vanishes. Her voice is higher and thinner than expected — not embarrassing, but sadly ordinary, like a younger, even blander sibling of Estefan. Unfortunately, that voice is a perfect match for the prissy, soft-focus ballads and tame dance pop that dominate On the 6. From rap to shrilly Latin workouts to the type of hip-hop R&B ballads done better by TLC, everything here feels neutered for maximum crossover consumption. (”Jenny, you da bomb,” goes a shout-out in the tepid, Puffy-produced hip-hop confection ”Feelin’ So Good.”) Lopez continually plays the role of heartbroken, compliant female, eager to hold on to her man at whatever price. Even her orgasmic Spanish moan at the end of ”Should Have Never” isn’t as arousing as the album’s cover. At least one track, the club-hopping 'Waiting for Tonight,' is worthy of a dance-floor diva, and the inevitable remix should sound even better."


 * I know the article is about the song and not the album per se, but calling his review "positive" is disingenuous considering his negative feelings about the album will alter his value of the word "positive." An object thought to be "not so bad" will stand out as "positively good" among a group of very mediocre objects. But that same object compared to a group of standout objects will quickly plummet in its appreciation. If testament is made to something being positively seen, then in all fairness, the context of what it's being seen up against ought to be briefly communicated to the reader.
 * I've changed it to "While David Browne of Entertainment Weekly was critical of On the 6, he felt that "Waiting for Tonight" was one of its better tracks", per the reviewer's suggestion. Is that enough to clarify this, or should Browne's negative review of the album be emphasized more (e.g. "While David Browne of Entertainment Weekly was negative in his review of On the 6...")? — Ar  re  02:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as how to word his review, I wouldn't characterize his review as being "he felt it was better" (better is somewhat of an awful word really) Instead, I would highlight the song as being one that the reviewer felt was "a standout" amongst others of that album — in other words, that song stood out in the reviewers mind as a song that for whatever reason, got more attention in the production phase perhaps, making it more carefully crafted. The mental image I have is of a pair of handcrafted, high quality eyeglasses as opposed to plastic ones fashioned by a machine. The reviewers appreciation for the song should be seen as more genuine because he had been primed not to like it, due to the other songs failings. When you have fans or critics who are sycophantic towards an artist, of course their reviews will be highly suspect (see The Emperor's New Clothes) But someone who has stated from the outset that they dont care for the album, yet they appreciate and like a song from the album, as this reviewer did, anyone who reads that review is going to be getting somewhat of a more biased-free assessment of that song. I would suggest:"'David Browne's Entertainment Weekly review of On the 6, despite strong dislike of the album in general, encapsulated 'Waiting for Tonight' as the album's singular standout release — stating in his review that the club-hopping release was 'Worthy of a dance-floor diva'.[8]"
 *  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

 * Alicia Lundgren, a 24-year-old dancer from Philadelphia, told the New York Daily News: "There's too many wrinkles. It looks like elephant skin."
 * This is attributed to the Daily Telegraph, who themselves copied it from People, who originally got it from NYDN. The attribution wheel goes round and round, but if the quote came from NYDN, then that is whom the cite should go to.
 * People Mag: "Alicia Lundgren, a 24-year-old dancer from Philadelphia, told Jenny from the block’s hometown paper, the New York Daily News, "There’s too many wrinkles. It looks like elephant skin."
 * New York Daily News: "There's too many wrinkles. It looks like elephant skin," said Alicia Lundgren, 24, a dancer visiting from Philadelphia."

Media elements

 * As the article's topic is itself a piece of media — an artist's song recording — there is a natural inclination towards using plenty of media in the article's space, something this article does very well. It incorporates an appropriate mixture of pictures, sounds, ranking lists and tabled information in order to assist the reader in bringing the article's subject matter to life. —  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   11:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)