Talk:Yeah! (Usher song)/GA3

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

Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 05:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I just thought that since he was already mentioned twice it might diversify the paragraph a bit. I've changed 'former' to 'Lil Jon'. Done. I've removed the "Burn" as a candidate" part and re-worded the sentence. Changed 'now' with 'eventual'. Ported over, with the sentence altered for better flow. I've combined the background and release, though the composition section was to small on its own, so its been combined with reception. I think both sections flow better now. The source doesn't give any particular reason to why he finds it distinctive, so I've removed it. Included in formation. The sales figure was already included at the end of the first paragraph in the chart performance section. I've made a note regarding the decade end chart just before it.
 * "It was produced by the former" is basically fine, but not optimum since there's a huge list just before.
 * "It was certified two times platinum in New Zealand, and received a platinum certification in several countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany and Norway." It looks like the 2x Platinum certification in NZ is worth less in total shipments than any of those other Platinum certifications, but even if that weren't the case I'd still recommend moving it to the end to improve the sentence's flow.
 * "Despite having the album's now second single, "Burn" as a candidate" there's something a little stiff about this wording, especially "candidate". I'd recommend simplifying that part, especially given the Lil Jon quote just below pretty much covers it, and also replacing "now" with "eventual".
 * I think the "Freek-a-Leek" has some vital details about "Yeah!"—for instance, that Usher had already recorded over the leftover song before Lil Jon realized it had been used behind his back. I'd port this stuff over.
 * A "Composition and release" is kind of unusual. Not a big deal, but the release section would be better paired with either the Background or Reception, and in this case I think it fits best in Background to keep the flow of the story of the song's creation.
 * "Mr. X said that the song reminded him of laser beams. He felt the sound was a laser beam for him, referring to the song as "distinctive"." A bit of a redundancy. It doesn't add much that he thought the song was "distinctive" either, unless there's more to that, like he thought it was distinctive for a particular reason.
 * Melyssa Ford is also worth a mention in the video's Background section, since she had previously worked with and was discovered by the director.
 * Neither the decade-end charts nor the fact that "As of August 2012, the song has sold 3,575,000 digital copies" are included in the main body of the text.

Verdict
I decided to pass this. One of the concerns brought up in the previous review was the lack of sources from things like Google Books, but I did a search there myself and it didn't turn up anything useful—a couple Billboards, a few Usher biographies, a few Vibe articles, but nothing that isn't already in the article. If you can find more recent critical appraisal of the song (Best of All Time/Decade kind of things, reflection on "Yeah" as part of Usher's career or R&B history), it would be useful to improve the article, but not essential to become a GA.

The other next step for this article is to advance the quality of the prose. Right now most everything is sufficiently clear, but there are some sentences that could be tightened up. For example, a sentence that I reworded: "Though "Yeah!" had been created, the label was not ready to decide whether it would be released as the lead single, considering they had "Burn" on queue." There's some slightly awkward wording—"created" isn't quite right for a song. I put "completed," though "recorded" is probably also OK. Also, more crucially, "was not ready to decide" makes it sound like the decision was inevitable, and that it was only a matter of the label mustering the courage or something. Strictly speaking it's accurate, but it's also a bit misleading. I think it's simpler to simply put that "Burn" was the planned lead single when "Yeah" was finished, which states the case as simply and accurately as possible.

Otherwise, this is a well-researched and reasonably comprehensive article considering it's on a 2000s pop song, and thus worthy of GA. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for passing. I intended to include a section discussing the aftermath or impact of the song on Usher's career, though I could only find articles discussing Confessions rather than its individual singles. I to believe that a single with the amount of success that "Yeah!" achieved should have a comprehensive article; if I come across anything I'll definitely include it.


 * Regarding the pros, not to point fingers or appear ignorant, but most if not all of the sentences you pointed out were written by the previous editor who promoted the article, to which it then got demoted. I just addressed the issues that got it demoted, though clearly that wasn't enough to promote it again, so I did a major over haul, re-writing the lead, chart performance, expanding the composition, writing the synopsis, formatting as well as other things. The background and release section remained mostly intact because I didn't want to remove all the work the editor put in, and at the time it appeared in acceptable condition. Anyway, thanks again for reviewing, and I'll be sure to take your suggestions into consideration.  Et 3  rnal  21:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)