Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Push the Button (Sugababes song)/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC).

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

 * Nominator(s): Till  08:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it meets the FA criteria. It is both well-written and comprehensive in its coverage, and the story of how the song came about is very interesting. The first nomination was closed because nobody commented on it, and I withdrew the second nomination so the whole article could be redone. Till 08:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Review by Wikipedian Penguin
Support Oppose Initial comments – the content seems satisfactory and the major information is there. But with regard to prose, it needs work. Choice of words appears problematic in some instances ("crush" is informal writing, and any reason "utilises" is used instead of "uses"?), and why link "teasing", the article for which does not disambiguate the meaning of the word in that context. Do you mean "seducing" (I haven't seen the video)? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When I rewrote the section for a second time, I used 'crush' instead of limerence. Should I add that back instead? Also, I changed 'utilise'. As for teasing, I don't feel comfortable in writing 'seducing' instead because that is more persuading somebody to engage in sexual acts. I unlinked it anyway. Till  02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking "was infatuated with", but that may give the wrong meaning and sounds, shall I say, fancy. For "teasing", I consider "seducing" and "flirting with" as alternatives but if you have something else, that's good; "teasing" is far too ambiguous here. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed "teasing" to "flirting". Till  07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In good conscience, I do not think the article is ready as a potential featured article yet. Work needs to be done throughout. The prose seems a little rushed and reads awkward in places. It needs to be tightened and be more cohesive. That's where I stopped. Till, it would be of your best interest to find a good uninvolved writer to give this article a thorough independent copy edit from top to bottom. And have a look at print sources that can strengthen the article's content and comprehensiveness. With a good amount of collaborative effort, this article can succeed. But right now, it is unfortunately not there yet. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "It was composed by Dallas Austin in collaboration with the Sugababes, after group member Keisha Buchanan developed a crush on another artist who collaborated with Austin." – why not just "...Dallas Austin and the Sugababes..."? There is no need for the added words in this context.
 * "...compositionally, it makes use of various computer and electronic effects." – what is the difference between the two?
 * This is something I see pop up in a lot of pop music articles and I don't see it as necessary: you have "music critics" written. Why should the type of critic be noted in a music article? Would a film or video game critic review a pop song?
 * "also" is a needless word in these instances: "Some critics also named it one of best pop singles of the 2000s. The song attained worldwide success and became one of the Sugababes' most successful singles"; "It was also parodied by firefighers in Staffordshire, England."
 * I don't mind this one too much, but a better grammatical construction would be appreciated here: "It features the Sugababes flirting with three men in an elevator."
 * "numerous" – " The Sugababes have performed the song at numerous festivals and events such as Oxegen 2008 and the V Festival 2008." – that's a bit of a hyperbole.
 * There is more redundancy here: "They subsequently composed five tracks for the album, one of which was 'Push the Button'." – why "subsequently"? It's obvious. Likewise, "for the album".
 * The sentence immediately after begins with "Push the Button"... Not pleasant to read.
 * cquote is not used in lieu of block quotations. It is used for pull quotes that are already given in the article. Stick to quote or the tags.
 * "Austin produced the song, while Rick Shepphard completed the engineering process." – just "...engineered it".
 * That last paragraph in the development and concept section needs reordering. Typically, recording is done before mixing and engineering.
 * "...the tempo of the song moves at a fast-paced 126 beats per minute" – subjective "fast-paced".
 * A few redundancies here: "while Joe Muggs of The Daily Telegraph noted that Austin's production of the song combines <both electropop and American R&B together." – first "both" is needless here and never say "combine ... together".
 * Content-wise, the composition section feels weak. We are given info about the genre, and musical technicalities, but there isn't enough on things like song structure and lyrical analysis, which I'd expect on an article about a major hit. The song was released over seven years ago; have you considered print sources?
 * Again, why "first" and "for release as" in, Push the Button' was first announced for release as the lead single from Taller in More Ways in August 2005."
 * Still there are reundancies: "According to group member Heidi Range, the song was not intended to be the lead single, and it was the last track to be completed for the album."
 * Overlinking: why link "music critics"?
 * First paragraph in Release and reception does not have a smooth flow to it. For example, this is very repetitive: Push the Button' was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005.[14][15] The tracks on the CD single and digital download include the single release of 'Push the Button'..."
 * Thanks for taking time to give feedback. For the meantime, I have fixed these issues. Also, I added a source to support the 'fast-paced' claim. Till  02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I am open to striking out my oppose when I think it is no longer appropriate. Cheers. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw. How do I find information on the song structure? I have searched everywhere online and on Google books and found nothing. Till  08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books usually doesn't have everything. There are bookstores, e-books and libraries too. But you're more likely to find good information from the 90s, which is unfortunate because the composition section is a little underwhelming. But I only ask of you what's possible to do. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For guitar-based songs, I typically check print magazines like Guitar World,Musician, and the like, who tend to delve into the musical/compositional side of things a lot. For a "non-rockist" pop song, it can be trickier; at most a web publication like Sound On Sound might talk about the production and how elements of the song are arranged. It's very possible you might end up with little information about the song's composition (I doubt you'll end up with a Composition section that looks like the one in "Paranoid Android"), but make all efforts to find any relevant information that might exist--as WikiPenguin said, that involves scouring print resources. Also, I'd recommend refraining from citing the sheet music, which is akin to citing the screenplay of a film; commentary on what's notable in a song should be drawn from independent, secondary sources. Refrain from citing album reviews for factual information about musical structure and composition, as by their nature reviews are opinion pieces. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this information, although Sound on Sound has nothing. Till  08:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Heads up: no commas after dmy date formats, please. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  02:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There aren't any but thanks Till  11:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See my edits. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't know it applied to that as well, I thought you meant 1 January, 2000. Btw, I went to the library and found nothing on this song. Till  12:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. I think we have a case similar to that of Rehab (Rihanna song): they have the major information, but they don't go into enough detail. "Rehab" is an FA, and one I supported because it is as comprehensive as can be, and it is well presented. So since we've as much information as we can have, the presentation is the one chance we have to make this article shine as "one of Wikipedia's best". That comes with good organization, flow and language. That is to say we should work towards a thorough copy edit. Also, the sound sample in this article does not seem very useful. What value does it have for enhancing the reader's understanding of the article? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  13:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Penguin. I'm still looking for any online sources I may have missed. The sample shows the computer effects used in the song. Btw, do you know where I could fit information about a cover? Till  01:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope you find something. You'll need a better rationale to keep the sample than just the use of computer effects. Include the Allmusic and Daily Telegraph observations in the caption. Otherwise, you're better off removing it. The cover can either go into the reception section or the pop culture section. The latter works well in that it will help round off the article nicely. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the composition section to the best of my ability, and fixed the rationale for the sample. Till  10:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look soon. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks Till  23:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Revisit


 * Lead
 * Lead sentence says just "Sugababes", while following instances use "the Sugababes". I'd probably tweak this sentence to clarify.
 * "It was composed by Dallas Austin and the Sugababes, and was inspired by a crush that group member Keisha Buchanan developed on another artist."&mdash;probably "...was inspired by an infatuation that group member Keisha Buchanan developed with another artist."
 * Push the Button' is a pop and electropop song with elements of electronic and R&B."&mdash;some redundancy here. Electropop is just a subgenre of pop and electronic. Essentially, it's an electropop song with elements of R&B.
 * Likewise, there is redundancy in the infobox too.
 * "It makes use of various computer effects, and is lyrically about a woman's sexual frustration of being unnoticed by a man."&mdash;just "uses". In most circumstances, avoid expressions such as "make use of", "make plans to", etcetera, when these can be expressed with one verb.
 * Reword so that we don't have two consecutive paragraphs beginning with the title of the song.
 * "...who praised the conception as clever, as well its production and sound."&mdash;clunky.
 * "The song attained worldwide success and became one of the Sugababes' most successful singles."&mdash;does not read nicely owing to the repetition.
 * "It features the Sugababes flirting with three men in an elevator. The Sugababes have performed the song at festivals and events such as Oxegen 2008 and the V Festival 2008."&mdash;also repetitive. Why not "the group", instead, in the second sentence?
 * More to come later on. But that work is still needed to be done is evident. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed these issues Till  02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One more left, the first point. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the name of the group is 'Sugababes', ie. the name of this specific girl group is 'Sugababes', but they are "the Sugababes", as without 'the' it sounds like an adjective Till  08:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Background
 * "... developed an infatuation on another artist who was also collaborating with Austin."&mdash;remove "also" since we have "another".
 * "Austin wrote five tracks on the album..."&mdash;"for the album", not on.
 * "Austin gave advice to Buchanan about the misunderstanding between her and the artist, and developed the idea of the man to 'push that button' or she would eventually move on."&mdash;just a tad awkward-sounding. Perhaps "advised"?


 * Composition
 * "...with a tempo of a fast-paced 126..." → "...with a fast-paced tempo of 126..."
 * "The production of "Push the Button" consists of various computer beats and electronic effects."&mdash;remove "of 'Push the Button.
 * "Joe Macare of Stylus Magazine described Buena's delivery of the lyric 'my sexy ass' as "carefree', and noted that the lyrics adapt an 'idiosyncratic approach"' to the English language.[14] Musically, "Push the Button" received comparisons to the sound of pop group Abba."&mdash;no need to italicize "my sexy ass".
 * More to come. I think we can get through the sections quickly. The composition section is also looking better. Good research. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  09:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fixed these issues for the meantime Till  09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Release and reception
 * "It was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005. Both release formats also contain a B-side titled 'Favourite Song'..."&mdash;the sentences can be merged by removing needless repetition: "It was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005 with a B-side titled 'Favourite Song'..."
 * "An extended play of 'Push the Button' was also released, which includes..."&mdahs;erroneous grammar and redundancy. You have the title of the song twice in that sentence, so "of 'Push the Button can be removed. "Also" can be removed as well. And when you have "which", the noun that it refers to should directly precede it. Otherwise, write "including".
 * "... composed by the Sugababes, Cathy Dennis, and Guy Sigsworth."&mdash;use "written" here to avoid repetition.
 * I think the prose in the first paragraph should be varied more. Repetitive prose seems to be an issue in the article and needs to be dealt with. Sentence structures are far too similar. Be a little more creative with the wording (e.g. "Island Records released an extended play", or something like that).
 * "Linda McGee from RTÉ.ie applauded the song's beat and melody, and suggested that it was the best track on the album."&mdash;"suggested" doesn't seem like the best word to use. Maybe "wrote" or something similarly simple.
 * There's more repetitive prose here. Every sentence begins in the second paragraph begins with "[Reporter] of [magazine]". It's almost as proseliny in the third paragraph.
 * "Alexis Petridis of The Guardian described the melody of 'Push the Button' as 'sweet and addictive as Smarties'."&mdash;well of course it's the melody of "PTB"; what other song would it be? There're many times you write "of 'Push the Button when all the words are doing is just fluffing up the prose.
 * I think Observer Music Monthly should be italicized.
 * More to come. This section needs some copy editing I'm afraid. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did everything except for changing "composed". Allmusic says the writers & producers and I can't tell who did what, whereas 'composed' can refer to both. Till  05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Better, but the general strcture is all too repetitive. Try different ways to open sentences (eg. "according to" and use transitions (eg. "likewise") and play around; experiment with variation. As for "composed", we have to do something about the two side-by-side sentences that end the same way. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did more copyediting Till  23:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Still need more work. For example, the copy edit introduced redundancy: "Comparing the song to those performed by Abba" (the subsequent quotation makes this obvious). It's often hard to copy edit sections like these, but repetitive prose = ungainly reading. Let me have a go if you don't mind. Thanks, — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Till  00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Commercial performance
 * "It became the Sugababes' fourth single to reached number one in the UK."
 * Do not capitalize certifications.
 * Push the Button' entered the Irish Singles Chart at number two, and peaked at number one the next week for three consecutive weeks."&mdash;a date here to get an idea of when this happened would be nice. Also, trim the prose: "...and was number one the next three weeks."
 * "...and became the Sugababes' best-performing single in Austria."&mdsah;vague. Per source it's the highest-charting single perhaps?
 * The prose here is repetitive too. ("peaked at"..."peaked at"...)
 * "It was Germany's 86th most successful single of the 2000s decade."&mdash;"decade" not necessary.
 * Push the Button' debuted at number 24 on the Australian Singles Chart for the issue dated 30 October 2005."&mdash;"in" the issue, not "for".
 * There's a MOS:NUM problem here. Chart positions are being formatted as both numbers and words; as per the exceptions to the 9+ rule of thumb, you must do either one.
 * You have five of the eight certifications mentioned in this section. This makes me wonder whether a table is even necessary and why wouldn't you just write out all the certification information in the prose. No sense repeating information. At the most, mention the two highest certifications in the prose, and leave the rest for the table. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything, except for the number issue. Do you want me to change '24' to 'twenty-four'? Till  12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That, or write them all out as numerals. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  12:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed '24' to twenty-four Till  12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How does ref 41 support that "PTB" was their highest-charting single in Austria? Also, it's obvious. There isn't a position higher than no. 1. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  16:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had written 'best-performing' until you told me to change it, but it's fine...I removed it Till  22:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And this&mdash;"It was the group's first number-one single in New Zealand."
 * I'm clueless as to what the problem here is, sorry Till  07:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source does not support "the group's first number-one single". — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah it does, just scroll down until you see "Sugababes in New Zealand Charts" and it shows all of the group's singles that charted there and Push the Button has a 1 next to it Till  22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Music video
 * "The music video for 'Push the Button' was directed by American director Matthew Rolston, who previously collaborated with the Sugababes on the videos for their singles 'Hole in the Head' and 'In the Middle'."&mdash;awkward tense. Subsititute "previously" for "had".
 * "It was filmed in Shepherd's Bush, London during July 2005."&mdash;insert a comma after "London".
 * "Several models and dancers auditioned to appear in the video, and were selected based on their dancing talent."&mdash;even models were chosen based on dancing talent?
 * "Buena described it as a 'really cheeky video', while Buchanan expressed her desire for it to be more suggestive."&mdash;this lacks logical flow and has poor connection. Also, it's wordy. Surely by "expressed her desire for", you mean "wanted".
 * "Some clips were removed from the final product due to their sexual content."&mdash;"due to" is adjectival. The removal of the clips was "due to" the sexual content, but they were removed "owing to" or "because of" it.
 * "The video features Range, Buchanan and Buena on separate floors of an elevator."&mdash;you might not even need this sentence since it's explained in the following sentences.
 * I may be wrong, but do they use "elevator" in the UK?
 * "Three different men separately enter the lift and are taken to three different floors, one for each of the group's members."&mdash;repetitive. Try something like "Three men separately enter the lift and are each taken to a different floor, where they meet a member of the Sugababes."
 * "The first man, described by Buena as 'Mr Shy Guy', arrives on the floor where Range is, in which they begin flirting with each other."&mdash;ungrammatical. "and they begin" would work.
 * "Meanwhile the second man, 'Mr Too Cool', enters the lift and is taken to the floor where Buchanan is. Buchanan is shown flirting and dancing with him. The third man, known as 'Mr Perfect', enters the lift with an umbrella, and arrives on Buena's floor."&mdash;remove "described as" and "known as" (redundancy).
 * "her man" does not sound like an encyclopedic writing style.
 * "Daily Mirror's Gavin Martin wrote that the Sugababes..."&mdash;"they" would be good pronoun referencing here. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed these issues, except for the 'models and dancers' one—the source says that both were in it. However, I wrote it wrong, because the source doesn't say that several ones auditioned, it just says that the guys who were in the video are models and dancers. Till  07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Buena described the video as 'really cheeky' and spoke about her satisfaction with it, saying: 'I thought the video turned out really great in the end'."&mdash;infomation is being repeated here, in the form of orignial prose, and a subsequent quotation.
 * "He compared Buchanan's dancing to that of American girl group Destiny Child's in the video for their single 'Bootylicious'."&mdash;ungrammatical. Remove "that of", or the possessive s" after "Child".
 * Fixed both Till  01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Live performances
 * You don't seem to use the pronoun "they" very often in the article. I think it can help you reduce a lot of the repetition.
 * "It was the gig's closing performance, and according to a critic from MTV UK..."&mdash;need a comma after "and".
 * Spot the repetition&mdash;"The group performed 'Push the Button' at London's G-A-Y nightclub in November 2006, wearing PVC clothing and rubber gear.'Push the Button' was included in the set list of the group's 2008 Change Tour."
 * "The group performed the song on 28 August 2008 at the Bridlington Spa. A rock version of 'Push the Button' was performed at the 2008 V Festival in Essex, England."&mdash;merge these sentences for better flow.
 * No comma after "In November 2008", "In October 2011", "June 2012", etc.
 * "...which included the group's debut single 'Overload', in addition to her solo tracks."&mdash;should be "that".
 * "Range wore a red, sparkly cropped top and hotpants for the performance."&mdash;fan cruft.
 * Fixed everything Till  01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Recognition and popular culture
 * "The video was promoted through the video sharing website, YouTube,[88] which was viewed more than 44,000 times."&mdash;who doesn't know what YouTube is? And correct the grammar issue in this sentence: "which" is supposed to directly follow "video", because that is what it's referring to.
 * Peter Dartford's quotation is about 60 words long. Suggest turning it into a block quote.
 * "Andy Kellman of Allmusic described 'Push the Button' as one of the most 'clever and suggestive' pop singles of the 2000s decade,[76] while Cameron Adams of the Herald Sun similarly highlighted it as one of the decade's best pop singles.[77] In October 2008, Nick Levine of Digital Spy called the song one of the best pop singles of the 21st century."&mdash;note the repetition of "pop singles".
 * "amongst" is a little too formal. Keep it plain (i.e. "among").
 * You've got to do something about the prose here. It feels repetitive, choppy, and there are some redundancies throughout. I tweaked the wording a little, but it needs more work. Improve the flow of the language. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed everything, I think. Except for 'best pop singles...'. Any suggestions? Till  01:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better, although I'm still concerned about the repetition of "the song" and the title itself in this section. I hope you can reduce that, thanks. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  02:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe I have fully taken care of all the repetition here. Did you have any suggestions regarding the section's title? Till  04:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the overuse if the song title in the prose. :) — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  00:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahaha okay. Is it still repeating ? Till  01:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Better, but need just a bit more. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  00:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now???? Till  02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Final note: I've struck my oppose; while my comments were technically addressed, I still don't feel the prose is well up there in terms of criterion 1a. It reads a little rougher in some places than I'd like. The prose feels little bumpy here and there and tweaks are still having to be made. I was not planning to do a top–bottom review, but after the article had been expanded I'd thought it wouldn't be too much. However, the article can still benefit from a copy edit. My main concern is the flow. Parts read a little like a list and that's rather ungainly. It's close, but pay special attention to the cohesiveness and I think the prose will finally be "professional, even brilliant". When you're ready, let me know on my talk page and I'll have a look (probably once Jivesh is happy). — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, 2 other editors who commented here said that the prose was fine. An FA doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be a representation of Wikipedia's best work. If I read the article thoroughly and others have said that the prose is satisfactory, then I can't know what to fix sorry. Till  23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my opinion was a bit rushed and hasty, and I apologize if it came out that way. I just reread the full article and the prose is quite good; it just feels a little rough in some spots. I certainly don't see opposing appropriate at this point and I do plan on eventually supporting. As I'd said, let me know when you've dealt with Jivesh's concerns. There's not really anything to "fix", but maybe places where you can improve the writing. I'll continue to do what I can. It's a short article, so I wouldn't mind. Cheers. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that we have spent the last 4-5 weeks copyediting and fixing the article, going through each section, sentence by sentence, so I don't see how there could still be things that need editing. To be honest, if the changes are not good enough at this point then the article is a lost cause Till  02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited some parts of the article, again. Inc. the repetition of "pop singles", and "composed by.." Till  03:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm good with the improvements. I was probably nitpicking a little too much. I agree that not much more can be done with the prose, and you're right: it does not have to be perfect. I've thought about this, and I do think it is very well written and meets FA standards. Some of the recent copy edits were just enough to convince me that this article is ready. And since the FAC has been open for this long, I have to put in a !vote, so I support its promotion. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow thanks Penguin, it has been a pleasure working with you on this. Till  12:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed! — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  13:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jivesh boodhun
Comment(s)
 * The prose seems satisfactory according to me. My main concern here is the formatting of references. You should be able to differentiate between cite news and cite web. The former is used for published newspapers while the latter is used for online as well as published magazines and other websites. This is by far the simplest way I can explain this to you and I sincerely hope it helps. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Legacy the appropriate word to use for titling this section? I do not think this song has very much of a legacy to be honest. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that "cite news" is only for news articles. Also, I renamed the section to 'Impact'. Till  02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, what about Recognition? Impact and Legacy are two words that should be used carefully. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed. Also, I fixed the references. Till  11:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: you could always avoid the cite template mix-ups by forgoing them completely. That's what I do these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Till 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? With all the respect I owe to you, I do not think that's a very recommendable thing to do. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do note that all sorts of reference styles are accepted on Wikipedia, but WP:CITEVAR says not to change an established ref style without consensus. So if Till wants to forgo using cite templates on further articles, they are perfectly able to do so. But if the ref style is to be changed for this article, it's probably not the best idea at this stage--but it can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do what pleases you. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Till, what bothers me next about this article is its composition section. Can it be expanded if possible? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have looked everywhere for sources to expand this section but still nothing was found. I guess I will have to make a trip to the library. Till  08:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went to the library but they didn't have anything. Perhaps I haven't... used the sources to their full potential? Till  08:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a possibility. :) Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I expanded the composition and lyrics section. Till  10:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I did a partial prose review at the August 2012 FAC. I think the prose is now considerably improved; I have made a couple of minor edits, and suggest you consider a few more:
 * At present, too many sentences begin with "'Push the Button'...", sometimes successively. You should try to vary this more.
 * Some whole sentences are rather repetitiously worded. For example, " 'Push the Button' debuted at number two on the Irish Singles Chart and peaked at number one the following week, becoming the group's first single to top the chart in Ireland" is followed soon after by "'Push the Button' debuted at number one on the Austrian Singles Chart and held the position for five consecutive weeks, becoming the Sugababes' best-performing single in Austria" and then "'Push the Button' debuted at number five on the German Singles Chart and peaked at number two three weeks later". Again, more variation in the prose would improve readability.
 * Delete the word "Synoptically". It's usually a bad idea to begin sentences with adverbs, and this is no exception. The section makes perfect sense without it.

Other than these suggestions, I can't see a great deal wrong with the prose. Editors with better knowledge of popular music than mine will have to decide whether the content is adequate and comprehensive, and I'll keep an eye on the review to see how things develop in that direction. Maybe the other reviewers could summarise, bearing in mind your responses so far, what they think is still lacking in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed these issues pointed out. Reviewers said the composition section was too short but I have since expanded it, they are yet to comment on that Till  02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance the article seems to have greatly improved with regards to comprehensiveness and the composition section seems adequate for an FA. I'll read it more thoroughly when I review the section. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  08:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting - Leaning to Support
 * From the second para of the lead, why is Best British Single in double quotes?
 * Fixed Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * From the third para of the lead, "Push the Button" appears on the soundtrack to It's a Boy Girl Thing (2006) and is featured on a commercial for Tassimo coffee machines. The song was parodied by firefighters based in Staffordshire, England. - Why are these two sentences here? Do you really think they need to be mentioned in the lead? Wasn't that parody just a random one or was the song parodied by firefighters from different regions of the world?
 * I don't know, I feel like the lead will seem empty if I remove these. Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Buchanan told Jess Cartner-Morley of The Guardian in September 2005 that she made advances towards the man, but he was unaware of her intentions - I think it will be best to either move the date to the beginning of the sentence or simply remove it for a better flow.
 * Removed the date in its entirety Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe Muggs of The Daily Telegraph wrote that Austin's production combines "raucous" electropop with "slick" American R&B.[8] - I strongly believe this sentence will fit best directly after the first sentence of the composition section or find a way to join these two sentences so that one sentence does not appear as a repetition of the other one.
 * Done Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Critics wrote positive reviews for "Push the Button". - So all reviews were positive?
 * Penguin wrote that. Originally I had 'Push the Button received positive reviews from critics'. Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to restore the sentence to your version and squeeze in a "most" or "many critics". — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Linda McGee from *RTÉ.ie applauded the song's beat and melody" - I think commended will be a better verb here.
 * Changed Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Observer Music Monthly described the song's lyrics as "perfect pop" and recognized it. - American English?
 * Fixed Till  00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.