Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Commander (song)/1

Commander (song)

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: No action. The article has now received the attention of several reviewers, and has been copyedited, with no subsequent case made to delist. Geometry guy 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was passed just a few days ago, and while the subject is extensively covered, the quality of the prose is not good enough. Even the first sentence has grammatical errors, and here are just a few examples:
 * "Commander" is a song by American recording artist, Kelly Rowland taken from her self-titled, third studio album.
 * granted that is an error.


 * In 2009 just prior to following Rowland's collaboration with David Guetta on "When Love Takes Over" she announced her departure from Columbia Records which was said to be by mutual agreement. However in an interview with Entertainment Weekly she revealed that the decision to leave was not hers and was more down to the records from the previous album, Ms. Kelly not being commercially successful.
 * I don't see this as an issue
 * In 2009, just prior to following Rowland's collaboration with David Guetta on "When Love Takes Over", she announced her departure from Columbia Records which was said to be by mutual agreement. However in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, she revealed that the decision to leave was not hers' and was due to records from the previous album, Ms. Kelly not being commercially successful.
 * There was no comma usage at all, which the editor may have been talking that. And hers needed an apostrophe, and "due to" seems clearer to read than "more down to". The article may indeed need a bit of copyediting. Candy  o32  16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The song was well received by critics who noted Rowland and Guetta as a winning formula.
 * I don't see this as an issue --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

These are just a few examples I found within a few seconds. The article really needs a good copyedit if it is to remain a good article.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   08:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some time to copy edit this please? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, copy edited. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would lean towards delist. The grammar remains poor, with punctuation all over the place. The quality of prose is average, and i saw at least one spelling mistake in an early section. The composition section is weak, with material under "themes" that does not actually appear to be about the themes of the song. It also needs people other than the song's writer and performer talking about the themes. On the other hand, the article represents an impressive assembly of info about a song and is closely referenced. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist. This is poorly written throughout, and should never have been listed. Someone who cares about the subject needs to go through the whole thing again and fix nonsense like this: "Currently in Belgium it sits at number three on the Flanders Tip Chart, five on the Wallonia Tip Chart whilst in Sweden it sits at number thirty-seven." Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with the sentence you pointed out. It is an on-going charting song. I'd say Keep it meets GA standards and most of the problems being brought up seem to be FA stuff. Candy  o32  15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the person currently 'looking after' updating the article I don't see that many issues with it. I am working to improve on it as more comments are left. It is important that users provide details or explainations of improvements that could be made to the article rather than just say things like de-list because x-y-z sentance. Also note in line with the comments about this is only a good article not a featured one and per the classification system it is not expected to be perfect. I will have a go at re doing the article if you give me chance --Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article's prose doesn't have to be brilliant, but it still has to be of a good standard. Here are a few other examples:


 * "It serves as the project's international lead single and her debut release with Universal Motown after the recording of the single caught the attention record label boss Sylvia Rhone." This sentence is too convoluted and could easily be separated into two. In fact, I don't even see the relevance of mentioning the information about Rhone.
 * "It was co-written by American songwriter Rico Love who, described the song". Should be, "songwriter Rico Love, who...". There are many instances of this recurring throughout.
 * "French DJ and producer, David Guetta produced". Don't see why the comma is there.
 * "The single was debuted at the". Maybe "premiered" is a better word?
 * "subsequently garnered universal praise from contemporary critics for reuniting Rowland and Guetta, on a dance track that marries her vocal performance with his production perfectly". "Universal praise" is a very strong term. While I'm not surprised the song was well received, it may be better not to use it unless you have a good source backing up the claim. The part about "marries her vocal... perfectly" is from a single review, and shouldn't be used to generalize the views of all critics. Maybe you could just mention that the vocals and production were praised.
 * "Promotion for the release included a number of live performances including BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge and The Graham Norton Show". Makes it sound like those programs are the titles of the performances.
 * These are all from the lead, and there must be multitudes in the actual body of the article. A serious copyedit is really required.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   14:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said if people give constructive criticism I am happy to invest time to rectify the problem, which is why I don't think the article should be delisted when it passess all other aspects. Thanks to all the users for pointing these out including Cornucopia. Perhaps the editor who passed the article should be informed as its not necessarily my fault if the GA was passed with poor prose. I accept that the prose is not of excellent quality. But this is one of my first GA noms and I am still learning. I believe that I have satisfied all of the issues above but I am going to proceed with yet another copy edit right now. Note that only yesterday I copy edited most of the article from the release section downwards. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The prose, especially in the lead, is a lot better now. Since I nominated the article at GAR, I'll leave it up to other editors to decide on the prose quality.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   06:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I, the reviewer, have been notified of this reassessment discussion, and I have been watching with interest. I have taken a break reviewing GAs while this process occurs, and I will try to be a bit tougher on the prose quality front in future. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. What is a "linguistic error" (in contrast to a deliberate grammar error)? Geometry guy 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (To clarify, I am referring to the "Music and lyrics" section of the article. I got stuck there when I tried to copyedit.)
 * I suppose there's not really any difference. Linguistics is the mechanics of the language and it probably wasn't the best term to use so its been removed.  Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  06:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have now tried to copyedit as best I could (I am very fallible, and do not know the subject). If I have introduced any errors or misrepresentations, please fix them, or raise queries. Geometry guy 00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)