Talk:Some Girls (Rachel Stevens song)/GA1

GA Review

edit
  • "Using a schaffel beat influenced by glam rock, "Some Girls" describes a pop singer who performs sexual favors in her efforts to achieve stardom." I think you have to rephrase the first clause. It seems that there is a connection with the lyrics with the song using that beat. --Efe (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • Fixed.
  • "Some Girls" was written by Richard X and Hannah Robinson." I think it would be better to identify who are these people, and some names in the succeeding sentence(s).
    • Fixed.
  • "such a sexually suggestive song" Curtis said this?
    • No, fixed now.
  • "she locked herself in her car" Any clearer reason why she locked herself in the car?
    • Added the reason.
  • "and later came up with a love song to Richard X" This is a bit unclear? Meaning she wrote a song to Richard X?
    • Reworded.
  • "She performs fellatio on a man" Is this her boyfriend or something?
    • He might be, but it's not specifically indicated as such in the song or any sources. All that's been stated, as far as I can find, is that it's "a man promising to make her a star", as stated in the article.
  • "The song uses Richard X's icy synthpop sound" Who said its icy? Icy is POV and unclear. --Efe (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll be back. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Additional comments
  • I think you need to add who are the reviewers instead of the publication/publisher alone.
    • Added.
  • "behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme"" I think it has no significance, seems fancrufty.
    • If it was more popular than every other song except for one, then what that one song was is significant. When there's so little information available about chart performance since it only charted in the British Isles, then it becomes very important to include details.
      • Readers wont actually care. --Efe (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
        • Fancruft is something that would "bore, distract or confuse a non-fan" and whose "exclusion would not significantly harm the factual coverage". Not mentioning which song was more popular at the time would certainly harm the article's factual cover, and it's something that's easily understood by anyone, not just someone who has heard this song. Considering the entire section is only five sentences since the song seems only to have been released in the British Isles, removing what information is available would prevent it from being comprehensive. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
          • Fancruft in the sense that how the phrase is written failed to give significance. Just stating "behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme"" doesn't make sense, and if removed would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding.--Efe (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • "Some Girls" was commercially successful in the United Kingdom. It debuted at number two on the UK Singles Chart, behind Shapeshifters's "Lola's Theme".[13] The song was not able to top the chart, and it remained on the chart for twelve weeks." Seems ironic. It states successful but was not able to top the chart. Maybe you have to remove that part and rephrase it with “It has peaked at number two on the UK Singles Chart, and remained on the chart for twelve weeks." Although that chart run is of little importance. Thoughts?
  • Is there a source about the sales of the single since it achieved as one of the best-selling single in the UK. Certifications?
    • The sales figures were there before I worked on the article, but none of the sources I could track down for it were reliable. BPI doesn't list any certifications for it. It supposedly sold 130,000 in the UK, so it wouldn't be certified with those sales since the UK requires higher sales for singles than for albums.
  • ”The song was moderately successful in Ireland” Moderately is POV and unclear.
    • Anything that's not clear about that is resolved in the rest of the sentence, where the peak position is given.
  • ”The song's music video was written by Richard Curtis” The word written seems odd. It does not fit to the context. What actually Curtis did? The treatment of the video?
  • "and in an interview with the NME, he stated, "That video is s**t [censorship preserved]." Insignificant?
  • I think the infobox of the cover has no great significance. Also, its not just all about the cover since you mentioned there Cotto’s version.
    • Is there a reason the infobox shouldn't be there? It's pretty standard when there's a section devoted to a cover version, such as in Layla, a featured article. Cotto's version is a remix of the cover version, which still falls under the scope of that section, especially since it's included on the official single.
  • The track listing is so "listy". Maybe the major releases only.
    • Removed.
  • Refs 5, 17, 19 are not reliable.

PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Im trying to ask someone to check the reliability of these three sources. --Efe (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's been over two weeks; if there's still no reason to consider the sources unreliable, it seems like there's no reason to keep this article in review. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've removed the information cited to Contactmusic and About.com now. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Comment; I'm specking from past experience here. From what others have told me with my multiple GA/FA flame battle field assessments.

Number 1 and 3 are not considered terribly reliable on wikipedia. I've never come into contact with the middle one so wouldn't like to comment on that. — Realist2 12:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the other source, see here. Its largely unreliable because its a self-published site. Anyway, no more major issues to deal with. I'll pass the article to GA status and congrats. Nice work and good luck in taking this to another level. Just a note, if ever you have plans of taking this to FAC, check sources if they are reliable. Congrats again. --Efe (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I did notice that it was self-published, but it seemed to still be reliable since the guy who published it has been previously published in reliable third-party sources, so it should still pass WP:RS as long as there are no WP:BLP issues. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I actually tried to scour the net to see if this person has been cited by a third-party reliable source but I have no time. Also, the stuff supported by this source isn't contentious. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply