Talk:My Moment (Rebecca Black song)/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this. Despite the not-so-academic subject matter, I can see this being a topic people will read. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• ""My Moment" received mostly negative reviews from music critics, with some considering the song as very different from Black's previous single, but criticizing the use of Auto-Tune on Black's vocals." This makes it sound like the difference from "Friday" was the reason for the negative reviews- that can't be right, surely?
  •  Done Changed to ""My Moment" received mostly negative reviews from music critics. Though reviewers praised it's differences from Black's previous single, the use of Auto-Tune on Black's vocals was criticized." This should make more sense by now. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "An accompanying music video, released the following day, portrays Black having her "moments", such as recording a song and making an appearance at the premiere of her own movie." Following what? In the background section, the article claims that the video was released before the single?
  •  Done Changed to "The song's music video, which premiered a day before the single was released, portrays Black's "sudden rise to fame" and her "moments"." I just decided to trim the sentence a little, so it could be clear without the need of what "moments" are in the video. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• The background section contains nothing about "Friday"- considering this is song is a response to the negative criticism, I'd really want to see a paragraph saying that she became famous because of "Friday", but that it was lamented as an awful song.
  •  Done Added sentence "Rebecca Black had become famous for her song "Friday" and it's viral music video, which received heavily negative reception from online newspapers, commentators and YouTube users.[2]" Switched of couple of sentences to make the Background section organized. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The song opens with addressing lyrics" Very strange phrase
  •  Done Changed to "Rebecca Black starts singing the lyrics" EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "On July 11, 2011, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Black said the music video tells "the story of her sudden rise to fame. [...] It's a fairy tale story, but it happened in real life."[1] On July 18, 2011, the music video was released through Black's YouTube channel.[3]" This is not an appropriate opening to a section on music video. I want to know what the video is before I start reading analysis of it.
  •  Done Music video section should be fixed by now. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Director Morgan Lawley intercut scenes of the studio with several footage" "before she actually starts full the choreography" Awful writing
  •  Done Music video section should be fixed by now. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• I really don't like the citing of YouTube videos to show how many views they have. It reeks of trying desperately to invent significance.
  •  Done I've decided to just remove the youtube sentence about the views, so this wouldn't be a problem for me. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• The making-of video is potentially a useful primary source for the article. Has it been scoured for useful information?
  •  Done All the useful info that could be put in this article would be when she said doing the choreography was her favorite part of the video. That's really about it. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• What is the use of the "tracklisting" section? It's a song available for download. It doesn't have a tracklisting. That would be like listing the books of a standalone novel.
  •  Done Tracklisting section removed. EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Inconsistent date formatting.
  •  Done EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Your references are a little weird in places. The tweet would be better formatted something like-

  Black, Rebecca (July 19, 2011). "[words of the tweet]" (tweet). Twitter. Retrieved July 19, 2011.

But, frankly, I'm not all that sure about citing YouTube and Twitter as "publishers" anyway. RB Records doesn't need to be italicised, you've got some publishers linked and some not, AOL source lacks a publisher, the obsession with listing parent companies is a bit weird...

Y Maybe done. I've decided to remove AOL as a publisher. I reformatted the Twitter and Youtube references using the Twitter and Youtube templates, and decided to put RB Records as a publisher. However, I'm wondering if linking all publishers is a problem for a Good Article, or if was a good idea to remove AOL as publisher. EditorE (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing the need for the non-free image.
  •  Done Non-free image has been nominated for deletion/ EditorE (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't terrible, but there are some problems remaining, not least with poor writing. I've had a hack at the text in places, but more needs to be done. J Milburn (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

1. What "non-free image" are you referring to? The cover art or the music video screenshot? If the screenshot, could you give me an explanation on why the screenshot wouldn't be needed for the article?

   I'm referring to the screenshot. I can't give you an "explanation on why the screenshot wouldn't be needed for the article", because that's not how it works. It's up to you to demonstrate that the image is required, not for me to demonstrate that it is not. I am suggesting that the image does not meet NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

2. What "useful information" did you find in the making-of video?

   I didn't watch it- I was just suggesting that there may be some. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. EditorE (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Second read-through

Ok, I'm taking a second look through the article.

• The opening couple of lines don't quite grab the reader as well as they could- I'm happy to let this slide for GAC, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
  •  Not done Not worth fixing for GAC, obviously as you said. EditorE (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "as of December 13, 2011 has over 30 million views." Why cite something so long ago? You could maybe say something like "by the end of the year". In any case, this isn't mentioned again in the article?
  •  Done Sentence removed. EditorE (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• The short paragraphs in the music video section don't look so good.
  •  Done Made into one paragraph. EditorE (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Accessed from" or "Retrieved" for retrieval dates?
  •  Done All "accessed from"s changed in "Retrieved". EditorE (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Formatting on the tweet reference still very odd. Perfect citation formatting isn't essential, but I thought it worth mentioning.
  • Got any suggestions to make the format of the reference essential for Wikipedia? EditorE (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is getting there, but it isn't quite there yet. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking much better again- I've made some more fixes (including rejigging the lead, changing the formatting on the tweet reference and removing an OK! reference) but I still want to massage the prose in the music video section a little- bear with me, this is almost there, but I think it's worth doing right. Feel free to adjust my edits as you see fit. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy that this is ready. The prose still isn't quite right in places, but, hell, this isn't FAC. Good job- been a pleasure working with you! J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)