Talk:Dear Jessie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'm going to be reviewing this article for GA. It may take me up to a week to finish the review. Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No disambiguation links or linkrot. Moisejp (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good prose, good MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All the references I could check match the info in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good level of detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See below.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The two images have FURs and appropriate captions. The sound clip is 10% the song's length.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Some small points:

• It seems Fouz-Hernández & Jarman-Ivens 2004 is missing from your References section.
  • Added. That was embarrassing. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just checking, but is Clive Barker's analysis of the song credible? Does he present convincing arguments? From the lyrics, it seems like such a far-fetched interpretation. But if you think he's a credible reviewer, I'll trust you!
  • On further inspection, it really does not seem very credible, you're right and I have removed it. Sometimes it happens that I become so engrossed in finding reviews for songs, that I don't judge pretty well how much worthwhile the review is. Its like "OMG, ound a review! Add it! Add it! Add it!" — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• In Composition, I'm not very happy with "the sound of a trumpet comes into play" but I couldn't think of anything better. But I'm sure there must be a better way to express that concept. Do you have any other ideas?
  • I have tweaked it a little, but not deviating from the idea as per the source. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• In the Chart performance section, some of your wording my convey a point of view and may be inconsistent. You mention matter-of-factly that it reached number 51 in Australia, but in Austria it failed to reach the top 20, and in Spain and Switzerland it failed to reach the top ten. Why the different standards for different countries? And then, and I'm not sure this is necessarily a problem, but I'm just mentioning it: "On the international chart for Japan, 'Dear Jessie' reached the top forty, but stopped at number 25." What does the "but" mean? Apparently that number 25 is not so great. Again, why the different standard when Australia's chart position is simply number 51? "In Germany, the song reached a peak of number 19 on the chart, but it remained within the German Top 100 for a total of 19 weeks." Apparently this "but" means that 19 weeks is really good. Will this nuance be lost on some readers? I do sympathize, though, that it's nice to have some variety of expression, and you don't want very sentence to be "In Australia, it reached... In Germany, it reached... "
  • Moise, normally the emphasis in commercial reception areas are put on major musical markets. Here markets like Australia, UK, Ireland, Germany and Japan are the major areas where the song charted. Hence a little detail has been added there and also focus the fact that it indeed performed poorly in those areas. Other places like the Pan-European nations are much smaller markets and generally we club them together in other articles, like "reached tip-ten in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland... and top-twenty in Greece, Sweden, Czech republic." However, in "Dear Jessie", since the song does not have much to write about its commercial accomplishments, I had to elaborate a little and add a little variation. Normally it is widely believed that a top-forty placing is good for a song, but top-tens and top-twentys are what makes a record superhit and hit respectively. Hence those annotations are arranged as such. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't believe Swiss is a language, is it? But, anyway, it seems the Swiss chart is also available in English: http://swisscharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Madonna&titel=Dear+Jessie&cat=s

That's all, I think. So I'm going to put this On Hold. Moisejp (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no language called Swiss. The website in question is in German, so I changed it. Pais (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the change Pais. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, it all looks good. Congrats on your newest GA! Moisejp (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)