Wikipedia:Peer review/It's All Coming Back to Me Now/archive1

It's All Coming Back to Me Now
I've written all of this article and would appreciate some suggestions of how to improve it, please. I think it's reasonably comprehensive. I'd be particularly interested on what would need doing to reach GA. The JPS talk to me  19:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * With the caveat that I don't know much about GA criteria: The lead needs expanding -- it should touch on all the major points addressed in the article.  Tell us something about who these musicians are; we shouldn't need to click on the links to understand that, for instance, Meat Loaf performs in a very different genre than Dion.  The description of the music videos is a little confusing.  It needs to be more obvious to the reader that the article discusses three different music videos for the three separate covers.  I would much rather see a fifteen-second side-by-side comparison of the Dion and Meat Loaf versions than the 30-second Dion sample.  Are the videos at YouTube infringing copyright?  Have we decided we don't care about linking to infringement (I cannot remember)?  The article is rather obviously lacking in any discussion of the lyrics and music -- we seem to be assuming that the reader is familiar with the song.  There is an editorial aside "and images of them together (presumably their "nights of endless pleasure")" that I'm guessing is a lyric quote, for instance.  The strength of the article is the treatment of the three different releases, of course, and there's a good balance struck in that.  Why is Meat Loaf's album the title of his section, when the others are named after the performers?  I hope that this helps, and good work on the article. Jkelly 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your useful comments, Jkelly. I've corrected a couple of the (easiest) points you mention. I'm worried/confused/unsure about discussing the lyrics without stumbling into original research; there isn't an obvious narrative, or such. There doesn't seem to be guidance on the use of copyright material on the talk page on the YouTube template: however, there are comments that at least if the template is used then infringements can be found and removed quickly. What aspects of the video descriptions do you find confusing? My writing style has always left something to be desired, and I'm not always sure what doesn't make sense. I thought it was clear that each description belonged to each section...? The JPS talk to me  21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely some reviewer has commented on the themes of the song -- right now we have Steinman's description of what the song is about, but I think some expansion with other commentary would be good, and I think we're safely outside of WP:NOR when we, for instance, provide a short quote directly from the chorus. If there's really nothing out there, however, there's not much we can do.  As for the video thing, I suggest that we lead the reader along a little more gently.  Instead of "The video was directed by Smith..." we can use "Smith directed the video for the Dion version, which also featured a motorcyclye." or something similar (note that I also avoided passive voice here).  As a rule of thumb, avoid surprising the reader when moving from thought to thought; if there is nothing in the preceding sentence that clues the reader into what the next sentence will be about, throw in a few words or a clause to guide them along.  All of that said, it wasn't really unclear, I just noticed that I had to check what section I was reading when in the video descriptions.  Jkelly 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would recommend changing the infobox setup. If I were to just glance at the infobox for info, I would think that this song is a collaboration performed by Pandora's Box, Celine Dion, and Meat Loaf as opposed to a song released as a single by each of three different acts. My recommendation, as I'm not very knowledgeable of other ways, would be to give each of the three versions a separate infobox, or to pick the two that most necessitate them (i.e., as of right now, I'm not sure Meat Loaf's would particularly require one to facilitate the presentation of information). I imagine this is a minor point within the context of the article but just thought I'd toss it out there. GassyGuy 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a fair comment, thanks -- and if I were being honest, I thought it looked odd when I first put it in. What's the convention about multiple infoboxes on a page? That would leave the very top of the page without an infobox... is that OK? The JPS talk to me  23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's okay as long as they appear at sensible parts of the article. You can see conventions about infoboxes at that section of WP:SONG. I'm pretty sure the general rule is that there shouldn't be more than three on any one page, which shouldn't be a problem in this case. If you look at my user page, I went ahead and started playing with the infoboxes. I would have placed them directly in the article except I'm not sure where the best placement of them is, so I'll leave that to another editor. On an unrelated note, I'm not sure if this info merits inclusion in the article or not, but one other version of this song was released (to much less success) by dance music performer Natalie Browne in either 1996 or 1997 after Celine Dion's version became popular. Thought that might be worth a sentence or two somewhere. GassyGuy 10:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, folks. I've done quite a bit more work on this to hopefully address all your comments The JPS talk to me  09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the only thing missing from Jkelly's suggestions, I think, is a description of the different styles. I'm stuck. I don't have the terminology to describe it, unfortunately: I'm not incredibly sure there's a big difference in these tracks. The JPS talk to me  20:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's now been granted GA status. Thanks to everyone who commented on it. The JPS talk to me  16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions It's All Coming Back to Me Nowhere. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)