Wikipedia:Peer review/S&M (song)/archive2

S&M (song)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know what to do to improve the article from GA to FA.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  11:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you started yet?? Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  00:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Bradley0110


 * Lead
 * "It was re-named "Come On" for BBC radio stations, however other stations played the original version." BBC Radio 1 is piped from "BBC radio stations", which is confusing. Was it renamed just for Radio 1 or for the whole network? ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9


 * Background and composition
 * The Background and composition section should summarise exactly that. The info on the J Cole remix should be moved to the Remixes section so it doesn't detract from information on the origin of the song. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * Prose is quite problematic; in some places, overly formal phrases are use which slows down the reading pace, e.g. With regard to the lyrical content, Rihanna explained in an interview with Spin that people should not take the lyrics too literally." The first clause is unnecessary; "Rihanna explained to Spin that people should not take the lyrical content too literally." has the same effect. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9


 * Remixes
 * "However, the most recognized remix of the song was with American singer Britney Spears." This needs a reliable citation. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * Billboard also uses the phrase "just as provocative". Can you recast it to something different in the article? ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * Can the Remixes section be moved elsewhere? It felt unusal to read the critical reaction to the Spears remix before the reception to the original version. ✅ Have moved the section, but I don't really get your point, because there is no critics response about the remix in the Critical reception section. Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * Consider how the article was written before: Background to the original song, then info about the remix, then critical reaction to the remix, then critical reaction to the original. Reaction to the original should come before that to the remix, rather than sandwiching the remix info in the middle.


 * Critical reception
 * My advice to people re putting in quotes from critics is only to do so if what they are saying cannot in any way be recast or paraphrased. If you pick out the salient facts of a critical review, you can build a section that focuses on similar opinions and themes, instead of having a prose-ified list of quotes.
 * Watch for italicising some website-only publications like Digital Spy. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * The last paragraph about the Radio 1 edit uses contradictory sources that potentially introduce factual inaccuracies to the article: "In the United Kingdom, BBC Radio 1 refused to play "S&M" before 7:00 PM due to the explicit nature of the lyrics. A spokesman for the radio station said "During daytime hours, as younger audiences are listening, we are playing the radio edit which is called Come On. However, we will continue to play the original track in specialist shows with an appropriate introduction... It is common practice to play radio edits of certain tracks in daytime." is cited to Metro. The article features the quote from the BBC spokesperson but makes no mention of Radio 1 refusing to play the original song. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * "The song has since been re-edited and renamed "Come On" by the BBC, and features as such on the BBC's official chart show." This is cited to Radio 1's official chart page (the link to which is no longer helpful now that the song has fallen out of the top 40 - see if the page is cached on the Internet Archive from February) and to a Digital Spy article. The Metro and Digital Spy articles supply different information: Digital Spy uses quotes from Rihanna's Twitter to build an impression that the BBC edited the song (but doesn't explicitly state that) and Metro states that Def Jam distributed the cut version. Either way, neither of the cited sources state the BBC "refused" to play the original song. ✅  Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9


 * Chart performance
 * ""S&M" made it's first chart appearance, following the album's release, in the United Kingdom[...]" Did it chart before the album was released? If so are there details? ❌ No? How would it of charted before the albums release when it hadn't been released as a single yet?? Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9 ✅  Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * "following the album's release" is nested in parenthetical commas, which causes the words to be presented as an aside. "S&M made it's first chart appearance, following the album's release,[...]" could easily have a corresponding sentence elsewhere in the article reading "S&M made it's first chart appearance, before the album's release[...]". Just lose the "following the album's release".


 * Music video
 * "However, the complete video premiered on Vevo[...]" Why the use of "However"? There is no indication that the full vid was expected to premiere on YouTube just because a half-minute clip did. ✅ Re-worded Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * "Next she is shown rolling on the floor with her hands and feet tied, a scene reminiscing the bondage theme." This is analysis that requires a third party citation. ✅ Re-worded Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * "Brad Wete of Entertainment Weekly commented that "with lyrics like ["Sticks and stones may break my bones/ But chains and whips excite me”], he was expecting "an equally risque video" and added that Rihanna delivered it." This is another instance where rephrasing a short quote can tighten up the flow, for example "Brad Wete of Entertainment Weekly's expectations that the video would be as risque as the song's lyrics were met." We've immediately lost the multiple quotation marks, the unsightly square brackets, and the clunky "commented that" and "and added that". ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * The reception subsection appears to be just a list of quotes. Many of the reviews talk about the costumes and the design, so try to recast the section around those. ✅ Did some re-working Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9


 * Live performances
 * "[...] however she was informed to "tone down" her performance by the show's bosses, [...]" "show's bosses" is tabloid speak (as would be expected from the citation to the Daily Wail) and should be changed to "the show's producers". ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9


 * References
 * Again you need to check the formating of citations to non-print websites, which should not be in italics. ❌ Which ones? There can't be very many? Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9 ✅  Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * You should also be consistent with whether you format publishers in or out of brackets (compare Refs 58 and 63). ❌ They aren't in brackets? Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9 ✅  Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * 58 was presented thus: Trust, Gary (2010-12-04). "Canadian Hot 100: Week of December 4, 2010". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved 2011-01-29. (no brackets). 63 was presented thus: Concepcion, Mariel (2011-01-28). "Watch: Sneak Peek of Rihanna's 'S&M' Video". Billboard (Prometheus Global Media). Retrieved 2011-02-02. (brackets)


 * Refs 125-27 need access dates. ✅ Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9

This article had three GA reviews within just under three weeks (two failed, one successful). Both of the failed reviews pulled up issues with the prose and sourcing. For the most part, the sourcing issues have been resolved (though a lot of citations are to the Daily Mail which is disgustingly biased) but prose issues still remain (see above). Satisfying criterion 1a of the FACR is very difficult, and it is not always easy to pull apart your own writing. Bradley0110 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have made some changes. One's I haven't addressed I have written a response to in bold. Thanks for reviewing. Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  09:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as my comments are concerned, this article is probably ready for FAC once the copyedit is finished. I don't know about A class though as I don't know what WP:SONG looks for in such an article. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done everything now. I am going to nominate it for A status, because there is no actual song article which is an A, just 2 video game theme tunes and 1 national anthem or something lol. Could you close this review now please? Thanks for reviewing! Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  22:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)