Wikipedia:Peer review/Gangnam Style/archive1

Gangnam Style
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…with edits dying down recently, I want to know what more editors could do to complete this article. The article at the moment is just a collection of facts -- I'd like to know what editors need to add and what needs to be purged of

Thanks, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

General comments from Paul MacDermott

My comments are based on a quick read through this afternoon. I haven't gone into depth, and haven't checked the quality of the references, so I hope somebody else will do that. The article would definitely benefit from a copyedit, particularly if it were to go forward for GA or FAC at some future point. Overall this is an interesting piece about a current phenomenon, and hopefully when the furore subsides it will be much easier to get it into shape. Let me know if you have any questions, and good luck. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, articles submitted for peer review should be free of major cleanup tags. There is one in the first section, which may need to be taken out.
 * The lead fails to mention several points made in the main text. For example, the origin of the term "Gangnam Style". Generally the lead should provide an overview of the topics covered in the article itself.
 * I think the synopsis should be higher up, perhaps after the Background section. Music Video refers to various scenes from the synopsis, so it would be useful to have an overview of what happens before discussing individual parts of the content.
 * There are several references to K-Pop. What is that? I'm guessing Korean Pop? A brief explanation would be nice.
 * Not sure it's necessary to tabulate Worldwide Reception. Could that not be written as prose? Also, the non-English text from the reviews is not required.
 * "Celebrity comments with more than 1000 retweets" seems a bit trivial. As with the above point it may be better to include some of their comments as part of a prose section. This may also come under Critical Reception.
 * Watch out for colloquialisms. I spotted a reference to a "woman's butt" in the synopsis. There may be others like this which need to be substituted with more appropriate words.
 * Also it's worth checking out a few GA and FA song-related articles for ideas on the sort of information that should be included. I tend to find one that covers a topic well, then use it as a template for writing anything similar. Layla and Bohemian Rhapsody are two particularly good pages in the songs category, but there are lots of others. Take a look at Category:FA-Class song articles and Category:GA-Class song articles. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply from A1Candidate

Thanks for your feedback I've expanded that section by adding (What I personally consider) some important background information for readers unfamilliar with Gangnam Style's music genre I've added and included (What I personally consider) some important information in the lead I agree, its now fixed. I disagree, I personally think its better to put it in a table, non-English text is allowed as long as translations are given and a short selection should be included as per WP:WORLDVIEW. I've moved these comments to Gangnam Style in popular culture instead I originally wrote "woman's buttock", which I believe is the correct anatomical term. Someone changed it to butt, but I've reverted that. I can't spot any other colloquialisms, at least not those written by me.
 * First of all, articles submitted for peer review should be free of major cleanup tags. There is one in the first section, which may need to be taken out.
 * *There are several references to K-Pop. What is that? I'm guessing Korean Pop? A brief explanation would be nice.
 * The lead fails to mention several points made in the main text. For example, the origin of the term "Gangnam Style". Generally the lead should provide an overview of the topics covered in the article itself.
 * I think the synopsis should be higher up, perhaps after the Background section. Music Video refers to various scenes from the synopsis, so it would be useful to have an overview of what happens before discussing individual parts of the content.
 * Not sure it's necessary to tabulate Worldwide Reception. Could that not be written as prose? Also, the non-English text from the reviews is not required.
 * "Celebrity comments with more than 1000 retweets" seems a bit trivial. As with the above point it may be better to include some of their comments as part of a prose section. This may also come under Critical Reception.
 * Watch out for colloquialisms. I spotted a reference to a "woman's butt" in the synopsis. There may be others like this which need to be substituted with more appropriate words.

Once again thanks for your feedback, it has certainly made the article better. -A1candidate (talk)
 * You're welcome. I've just read through this again and it's looking much better. I've made one small adjustment to the text, but am happy for you to revert it if you don't think it's necessary. Let me know if you need any more help. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)