Talk:Audience (Ayumi Hamasaki song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IndianBio (talk · contribs) 18:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Audience" received positive reviews from music critics, many who highlighted it from the parent album and her music career. --> Audience" received positive reviews from music critics; many highlighted it from the parent album and her music career.
• Critics also highlighted the track because it was the only dance song on the album ---> redundant so remove
• It achieved lukewarm success in Japan --> You need to give context here, why is this lukewarm, it even received a gold certification. Perhaps you mean compared to her other singles?
• Ayumi Hamasaki's track "Audience" appeared on her third album, Duty (2000) --> What kind of album was Duty? Studio? Compilation? You need to mention that.
• The next portions, about the musical success of A Song for ×× and Loveppears have no contextual significance here. Please remove all of it and start from "Hamasaki begun work on Duty and followed a similar musical concept like her first two albums"
• After that you deviate again. What do the commercial success of previous singles have to do with "Audience"? Please remove.
• During the writing process of Duty, Hamasaki found it "unnatural" --> Unnatural in what way?
• "Audience" became her third song and second song penned by her to have incorporated English-language lyrics after "Whatever" and b-side "Love: Since 1999".[B] Despite this, "Whatever" only used the word "Wow" while "Love: Since 1999" was not written by Hamasaki and, like "Whatever", by only using a singular phrase, it does not count in using English-language conversation like she did in her 2002 album Rainbow." ---> Too much explanation but ultimately is the song a full English song or not? This needs rewrtiting for making the idea clear.
• In an Amazon.com review, the editorial reviewer had commented on the tracks on Duty and praised the songs for embracing a "healing effect" that was absent on her two previous studio albums.[32] CDJournal was positive towards the track, calling it a "positive", "bouncy" and "fun" song that works well with friendships.[16] The reviewer commended the "aggressive melody" that escalates and raises the "excitement level. ---> Both are unacceptable reviews, remove please.
• The song was unable to pass Misia's single "Everything" and Southern All Stars' single "BLUE IN GREEN" ---> The capitals song name is just a stylization. Please abide by Wikipedia MOS and change it to just "Blue in Green".
• by the RIAJ for shipment --> Expand to the full name since its the first usage in body
• For certification please use {{Certification Table Entry}}
• Please use WP:ACCESS parameters in the charts and release history tables.
• Please use en-dash in between connecting words instead of normal dash.

—Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

On hold for seven days. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Done. I've finished all adjustments, grammar errors, re arrangements, etc. Please notify me if there is a hiccup or error and I'll fix it up immediately.

Comment. Regarding the comment you made “After that you deviate again. What do the commercial success of previous singles have to do with "Audience"? Please remove.” I felt it needed to be on the Background page, as it reflects the parent album, meaning, success, singles, etc. So I kept it on there but removed everything else. Please reply if you think my comment is wrong. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 09:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi GirlsAlouud, I understand your reason for adding the background info for the other singles and album's commercial performance, however the content is not linking up to this article, which is about the single "Audience". It is a case of WP:UNDUE here. Think of it in this way, for eg, if the commercial performance of the previous releases might have been a deciding factor in releasing "Audience", or directly inlfuencing its release, then the addition would make sense, other wise now how it is, it looks like the prose completely deviating from the topic. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Thank you for clearing that up IndianBio. I have removed the redundant material and merged the very small brief of "Audience" and the composition sub-article together. After doing that, everything is up to scratch I believe. Please comment back if I have missed something. Thank you in advance. GirlsAlouud (talk · contribs} 10:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)