Talk:Rescue Me (Madonna song)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Mine! Initial comments should be up within a few days. Give me a ping if nothing is posted before June 19th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Kicking this off by assessing the infobox and lead.....

Just to let you know SNUGGUMS that I am checking all the review comments. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• File:Madonna - Rescue Me (single).png has an appropriate FUR

Lead

• Is the "co-" for "co-written and co-produced" really needed when one could say "written and produced"?
• "Initially" from "Initially it was not planned to be released as a single" should go after the "not" or it reads awkwardly.
• The "an example of Madonna's future musical endeavors to come" bit sounds rather vague, so I'd scrap that entirely.
• "'Rescue Me' reached the top-ten of the record charts in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States; in the latter country it became Madonna's 22nd top-ten hit on the Billboard Hot 100 chart" is too long of a sentence. I recommend splitting this in two by placing a period after "United States". Let's also use a more encyclopedic term than "hit", maybe "entry" or "song".

That's all for now. More to come in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Lead completed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Background and release

• Is "Madonna was ready with her first greatest hits collection" supposed to mean she was ready to release it?
• "The collection had 15 of Madonna's hit singles released previously"..... "15 of her previously released singles" or "15 of her previously released songs" would read less awkwardly
• This doesn't mention anything about "Justify My Love" or music videos, though the more pertinent point anyway is that there weren't at first any plans for single release until it became popular on radio.
• While AllMusic does note there wasn't any music video for this track (as well as how this follows up to "Justify My Love"), it says nothing about the cover art.
  • It does, "That said, the single, which featured a seductive still from the infamous "Justify My Love" video as its cover art". —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unless I've missed something, Official Charts Company doesn't give an April 7th release or mention anything about a "Crazy For You" Remix becoming the second single. Something I should note either way (even though this was released before the 21st century when downloads and streaming became popular forms of music consumption) is that you cannot simply presume something is a single solely because it charted given how countless non-singles can and have entered main song charts of nations.
  • That's exactly what it was, you cannot chart in any country in the 90s unless a single is officially released for consumption. The single list for the OCC does show Crazy for You as charting prior to Rescue Me. But anyways, I added the date for UK. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• "In some places, a video, created using footage from Madonna's 1987 Who's That Girl World Tour"..... it would help to specify these places, and remove the extraneous comma after "video". Perhaps you could replace that with "a video consisting of footage" or something similar.
  • Not mentioned which exact places these are. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• "'Rescue Me' is the only song from The Immaculate Collection that was not included on Madonna's third greatest hits album, Celebration (2009)" isn't really relevant here, better for the Celebration article if anywhere.

I'll be back with more later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Recording and composition

• File:Madonna - Rescue Me.ogg seems to meet WP:SAMPLE and WP:NFCC#8
• I'm not sure how Shep Pettibone also working on "Vogue" is relevant here, and same goes for "This was employed on all of Madonna's past hits present on The Immaculate Collection."
  • Because the Q sound was an important addition to all the tracks. If I'm speaking of recording, sometimes you cannot just concentrate on this single. The overall sound does come into picture. Also, the "Vogue" bit just iterates the fact that they have worked previously. It wasn't their first collaboration and is fine to mention. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• There should be a comma after "Lyrically" in "Lyrically the song makes allusions to love rescuing the singer"
• Remove the comma for "Author Santiago Fouz-Hernández noted in the book Madonna's Drowned Worlds," or put "Author Santiago Fouz-Hernández noted" after it
• The "Titanic Vocal mix" bit from "An extended mix was created called the Titanic Vocal mix, alongside a stripped down Houseboat Vocal mix which used a new beat and instrumentation" isn't supported by this, but can be found in the AllMusic link I included above. I would also add quotation marks for "Titanic Vocal mix" and "Houseboat Vocal mix".

That's all I can do for now. Next will be "Critical reception". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "a house colored pop-dance rave" sounds like it would fit better within "composition"
  • Agreed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• "Pettibone has outdone himself this time, creating several new versions that should suit a variety of formats... In any mix, "Rescue Me" proves to be far meatier and long-lasting than the previous 'Justify My Love'." unfortunately has a misleading opening; the text actually says "Shep Pettibone, the track's co-producer and remixer, has outdone himself this time" rather than just going from last name to outdoing himself as the current text suggests. Also, just use singular quotation marks for song titles rather than double when referring to songs within a quote per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  • I don't wanna use the co-producer bit, ellipses are fine. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• You have the wrong URL for Entertainment Weekly (Rolling Stone is currently in place), and probably meant to use this. I'd also flesh this out more and note that he didn't feel it broke any "new ground" for the singer.
• "gave Madonna's records an edge"..... no; the quote uses gives, but you could move "gave" to outside of the quote to be more faithful to its wording
• "worthy [and] sensual"..... again, don't distort quotes; this presentation incorrectly implies that the word "and" is actually used when in fact it isn't here
• Don't italicize Sputnikmusic or edit its quote with words not actually used; this can easily give readers the wrong idea of what the reviewer said
  • This one I have to disagree. The braces are implied wording not to repeat the words just used prior. This is absolutely fine to use and is mart of our MOS. Please read MOS:BRACKET. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• "one of ten Madonna songs that radio had forgotten"..... let's get more to the point and say Daw felt it was one of her best that radio forgot about, also please don't insert your own words into the middle of quotes without breaks as you did in "kicked off [her] early '90s period" when "kicked off the diva's early '90s period" is what's actually used
  • See above, MOS:BRACKET. I'm not going to use phrases like "the diva's" in an encyclopedic article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if "Daily Review" should be italicized, but regardless cannot in good conscious ignore how "Madonna [began] a phase of her career" was blatanly refactored from "Madonna is beginning a phase of her career". One simple fix is to put the beginning quotation mark at "a" or "phase" so it doesn't wrongfully give the idea that this site actually used the word "began".
  • Again, not a big deal. If you feel it is a big deal please feel free to have a second opinion. MOS:BRACKET is the manual of style here and I will follow that. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Studio number count for Erotica isn't mentioned here and doesn't seem relevant in this case anyway
  • Studio number count does not require source in this case. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"Chart performance" will follow in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: dear can we have this one done? Only two sections remaining. I'm expecting some delay in response from my side for the next few days due to going on holiday. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I should get more out within the next 24 hours and will post when I get the chance. Sorry for the delay. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Chart performance

• Even though File:Beatles ad 1965 just the beatles crop.jpg doesn't have any copyright issues and I can tell why this was inserted, it seems decorative above all else plus it's better to stick to images of people actually involved with the song (definitely not the case for George, John, Paul, and Ringo)
  • Disagree. We have seen multiple cases where we can include images from artists where its a representation of any accomplishment or ranking over the song/album under question. Examples: Rebel Heart, "Cherish", "Secret" etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Seems incomplete when France, Germany, and Sweden aren't included. I'm not saying you have to go into much detail on these countries, but they should at least be mentioned by name here. Having them listed within a range (i.e. tweaking the one listing multiple European territories could work) is fine.
  • Yes seems reasonable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Forgive me if I've missed something, but nothing here seems to mention December 1990 chart achievements
  • You are correct, don't know why I wrote December 1990 hehe. It mentions that the song already had climbed to number 7 on airplay points (p. 83) and was being played on almost all major radio stations (p. 14-15). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• "It was being played in almost all major radio stations in the country" seems like it could use an "already" between "was" and "being"
• "within the last 20 years"..... 21
• Nothing in this notes remixes played any roles in dance club charts, only suggests that it was a popular choice for playing in clubs
  • Removed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• "In Canada, the song debuted on the RPM Top Singles chart at number 96 and reached a peak of number seven on" seems like an incomplete sentence, or perhaps you could say "and later reached number seven".
  • Mentioned the weeks after which it peaked. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think "top-20" in "managed to reach top-20" is supposed to be hyphenated
• "it has sold 134,767 copies in the country according to the Official Charts Company"..... no; this is according to Music Week
  • No, Music Week gets the information from Official Charts Company, like how Billboard reported sales are from SoundScan. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• You should probably include these links for Ireland and Italy respectively as Swisscharts.com doesn't cover those and neither does Music & Media
  • You are correct, included them. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything else will probably come in my next batch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not much left then. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Track listing and formats

• I will assume good faith that these are all accurate listings even though I can't personally access each and every physical release or their booklists

Credits and personnel

• Same as before

Charts

• Everything is A-OK

Certification and sales

• One issue; use all plurals since more than one certification is listed
  • Not really, if you check its only one certification listed and multiple sales. The section header reflects that correctly. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See also

• No concerns

References

• All citations properly formatted, and no dead links

Bibliography

• This is discouraged for section headers per MOS:BIB when it's an ambiguous description (could potentially refer to works by or about a subject)
• The Taraborrelli reference is malformatted; it should read "Taraborrelli, J. Randy" as he goes by his first initial "J" for a first name rather than "Randy"

External links

• Perfectly fine

Overall

• Prose: Still needs to be polished (i.e. "being in almost all major radio stations" needs "played" after "being", "managed to reach top 20" seems like it's missing a "the" after "reach" or you could say "number 18" instead of "top 20", I'm still weary about using brackets within quotes as it feels less honest than using actual words or even paraphrasing outside of quotation marks despite the page linked above)
  • Small misses and I have rectified. Brackets I have already explained that its a MOS we follow, nothing to do with being "less honest" or personal preference. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Referencing: Every statement is credibly cited
• Coverage: A bit of excess detail in "composition" (I fail to see how it's worth noting here that other tracks on The Immaculate Collection also had Q Sound when that's better for the album article)
• Neutrality: No bias detected
• Stability: Perfectly fine
• Media: I still don't see any benefit of including pics of people not involved with the song at all (WP:OTHERSTUFF not withstanding) as that looks like filler in comparison to those who were involved
• Verdict: This article is being placed on hold for seven days to resolve remaining concerns starting now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I had already responded to your queries about the Q sound and the Beatles pic. We have multiple instance of including images of people maybe not directly involved, but if commentary allows it we can. If we go by your personal preference, then we probably don't need any images in any article in Wikipedia. Imagine how drab that would be. This is far better and tallies up to the commentary about the song's performance than using some dumb image of, lets say a recording engineer, and just simply say "Mr. XY recorded the song". —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Saying "we probably don't need any images in any article in Wikipedia" is blatantly exaggerating my point when I was saying to opt for those more connected with a subject. If anything, there would simply be fewer articles were certain pics are used. Anyway, I did see your replies above, though obviously wouldn't fail based on image use alone here or Q sound. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: my point was that this is far more connected to the article than using a random image of someone who has a one line mention. I did not mean that you were exaggerating. There are certainly articles where decorative images are placed (God knows how many I have removed from the Gaga articles especially by Another Believer). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Point taken. Anyway, I just looked over through this again, and after a minor copyedit, it's now good to go! Promoting to GA and I strongly recommend you try to get this as a DYK for Madonna's 60th birthday next month if possible. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.