Wikipedia:Peer review/Better Than Today/archive2

Better Than Today
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to reach featured article status. This was in FAC a day ago and general consensus was that the article had prose problems that should have been solved earlier in PR. Because of this, I am now here.  Note: Australian English (which is similar to British) is the preference.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks,  I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: The final comments on the previous peer review are dated 30 March. The rules of WP:PR require a gap of at least 14 days between peer reviews of the same article, so this had been renominated a little prematurely. However, I will post comments within a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]): I have had to deal with this rather hurriedly. The article is certainly in better shape than it was during its recent FAC, but I think that some further work is necessary. A lot of work has gone into the article since its FAC outing, but I still feel that the prose could do with some further polish. From the edit history it is evident that most of the work has been done by a single editor; I feel that before a return to FAC, a fresh, final copyedit from a previously non-involved editor would be a big advantage.
 * Lead
 * Despite your explanation offered in the recent FAC, the phrase "positive to mixed reviews" reads confusingly.  Are we to understand that the song received no entirely negative reviews? If this is so, it would clarify if you said "both positive and mixed reviews from contemporary critics", but as it stands people will continue to wonder what you mean Good Point. Done.
 * "Reception for the video was mainly positive, with most noting its similarities to Minogue's previous music videos." Most who, or what? Done.
 * Background
 * "Pallot stated when Minogue personally called her later..." very awkward phrasing. I'd delete "personally" as redundant, and rephrase: "Pallot stated that when Minogue called her later, ..." Done.
 * Why were subsequent sessions that Minogue had with the duo "less successful"?
 * I don't know. That's what the source said. I could try to find more info, but finding that article was a batch of hell in it's own right.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but what does "retool" mean?
 * Changed wording. Please check.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Composition
 * Not an appropriate title for this section. It deals with the song's general character, and includes some review comments, but does not discuss the song's composition.
 * The composition basically describes stuff that could be found in the sheet music and it's described structure. I feel like this section does this.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary repetition of name in "Pallot's version of the song is composed in the key of G major with Pallot's vocal range..." Just "a vocal range will do". Likewise the Minogue sentence later. Done.
 * General readers probably won't understand voice ranges expressed in terms of B4 and G6 etc, and will find the chord progression details mystifying; what will they make of "F-E♭-Dm-Dm-E♭-F", for example. I am not sure how much of this technical information is useful in a general encyclopedia article.
 * I don't know how to make the terms and text simpler.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Critical reception
 * Avoid "...reviews. Reviews..."
 * Think I got it. Please check.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mikael Wood of Entertainment Weekly called it..." Define "it" Done.
 * Second paragraph: the word "officially" is superfluous Done.
 * "They chimed in" is too informal
 * Changed, please check.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Chart performance
 * You cannot have "worse" success. You can have "worse results", or "less success". Done.
 * Music video
 * I haven't had much time to look at this section, but I'd say the girls are wearing pink wigs as rather than "like" shoulder pads. Done.
 * Female dancers (plural) can't be wearing "a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band (singular). The Pac-man link isn't at all helpful to someone like me, who wondered what a Pac-Man-esque helmeted band was (do I have to read the whole Pac-man article to find out. Done. Bad wording.
 * General

I hope these comments are helpful to you. As I am not at present able to watch individual peer reviews, please contact me via my talkpage if you have any queries you wish to raise, arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ (answered by I Help, When I Can. [12]) :

The article should be written in Australian English (e.g. I have only experience with BE and AmE, but sentences like "colored font" should not be "coloured font"?)
 * General
 * I can understand Brit English, but when I'm typing, Am English usually comes out. I need someone to proofread it using Aus English.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to do this before nominating it to FAC, it would no take many time.


 * Composition and critical reception
 * Popjustice compared -> wrong italics
 * See previous peer review for explanation.
 * In the previous PR you stated that there were no consensus about this. Regardless of a consensus or not, this is a grammar issue. Published stuff (albums (excepting singles), books, films, newspapers, etc.), latin nomenclature, to do emphasis, and other things have to go in italic text. Per MOS:ITALIC: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized", an neither of them are online magazines, newspapers and/or new sites with original content. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... Yes they are. All sites italicized are online publications with original material.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are proably confunding the originality here. The material passes the threshold of originality, but they are not listing new things (which is that kind of originality). If those websites were the very first in review singles, they should be italized, but they are not. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Popjustice is a highly respected music website with a editorial staff and the works. It's staying.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 05:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consequently, after acknowledging that both "Better Than Today" and "Get Outta My Way" charted poorly across the world, she confirmed there would be no more singles released from the album.[26] -> relevant to the album, not the song.
 * Sentence tells us why "Better Than Today" is the last single. Backs up statement in lead.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, it is an incorrect section to make that statement. Also, it is not neutral. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But the chart performance is the reason. It is correct.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Music video
 * I, as a reader see the next of the music video image: Minogue holding a microphone singing in front of a stage wearing a blue dress]]. Therefore, the image fails our fair use policy as images of Minogue doing that exist.
 * They also show the projection of the lips, her wardrobe in the video and the shoulder pads. If I write an in depth caption, would that cure this worry?  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Write a decent caption won't make it pass NFCC#8, because the main idea behind the sceen is "Minogue in the video (doing something that can be repelaced by free content)." I'd use images of Kyle throughout the article instead.
 * Most of these performances resembled ones from the tour and the music video as well. -> Unsourced
 * I could cite the videos themselves, or the choreo. I think that I have provided adequate citations for the wardrobe.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cite them cite video. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * References
 * 1.- Allmusic. -> wrong italics. Passes MOS:ITALIC.
 * 4.- Publisher needed
 * 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.1, 26, 27, 28.1, 32, 44, 50, 52, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73.- as ref 1
 * 14, 15, 19, 36, 37, 42.- as ref 4
 * Some of them don't have publishers listed because the publishers are the exact same entity. Change anyway?  I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If thry repeat both (e.g. BBC. BBC) the best to do is use the publisher field only. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 01:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from Novice7
 * Query:The sheet music says Better Than Today: Kylie – Digital Sheet Music, but it's used to analyze Pallot's version too. Does it really say about Pallot's version of the song?
 * More comments to follow :) Novice7 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)