Talk:Holler (Spice Girls song)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Garnet-Septagon (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article as per the WP:GACR. Apologies for the delay in someone getting around to taking a look at it.

Quick Fail Criteria

For this section I'm looking at the revision as of 12:02, 20 June 2023

 Passed Not a long way from meeting any of the GA criteria
 Passed All media is CC licenced or has a thorough fair-use rationale
 Passed No cleanup tags
 Passed Stable
 Passed No previous GA nomination

Reference spot checks

For this section I'm looking at the revision as of 12:02, 20 June 2023

Spotchecks are a GA requirement; I'll pick a few citations and check to see that the source correctly supports the citation.

Sources are all reliable, mostly music magazines and news outlets.

• FN 1: N The source says that they announced tour dates for December 1999 after a break in which they focused on family, but not that they had launched solo careers or the dates of the Spiceworld Tour and single Goodbye.

Removed the bit about the solo careers Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• FN 3: Y
• FN 4: Y
• FN 7: Y
• FN 8: Y
• FN 13: Y
• FN 20: Y
• FN 21: Y
• FN 24: Y
• FN 25: Y
• FN 28: Y
• FN 30: Y
• FN 35: Y
• FN 37: Y
• FN 43: Y
• FN 47: Y
• FN 57: Y
• FN 66: N Dead link, hopefully just needs an archive URL

Archived Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• FN 69: Y
• FN 73: ? Unclear what this adds

Removed Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• FN 76: Y
• FN 80: Y
• FN 81: Y
• FN 87: Y

Broadly very good, I'll continue with the review and leave these to be addressed alongside my comments below.

GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See #Further notes

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See #Further notes

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Positive and negative reviews are both present in abundance.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All issues addressed.

Further notes

1a

All below issues  Fixed Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC) A few notes on wording/citations:

• " The song was a commercial success, peaking at number one on the UK Singles Chart, becoming the band's ninth number-one single in the region, tying with ABBA as the group with the most singles to reach the top of the charts. Internationally, it was also commercially successful, reaching the top spot in Scotland," - Scotland is part of the UK, so it doesn't belong in that sentence.

Removed Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "In the United States, however, it did not reach the Billboard Hot 100, but managed to reach number 12 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart." - I'd omit the "however" from that sentence as there is also a "but".

"however" part removed Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "The song was performed by the Spice Girls on British televised shows such as SMTV Live, CD:UK, and Top of the Pops during a brief promotional tour for the single" - I'm not convinced going on shows like that deserves the title "promotional tour". I'd downgrade the wording to "...Top of the Pops to promote the single" or something similar.

Rewritten Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "as well as on the 2000 MTV Europe Music Awards in Stockholm, Sweden, which became their last live performance before going on an extended hiatus to focus on their solo careers." - the article quotes that "Chisholm declared that it could be their last appearance together before going on a hiatus to focus on their solo careers", but we don't have a source that it actually was. The article goes straight to the reunion tour but it would be good to have a sentence or two that clearly support this assertion.

Removed Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "While reviewing their Greatest Hits album, Nick Levine of Digital Spy stated that "Jerkins' slick, stuttering R&B numbers" from Forever failed to capitalise on the group's "very British sense of mischief, but it functions brilliantly on two levels."[37]" - It passes validation but it's strange that the quotation ends with "it functions brilliantly on two levels" without saying what those levels are, I'd add the extra part at the end.

Rewritten Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• "On 29 October 2000, the song debuted at the top of the charts, selling 106,000 copies on its first week.[41] With this feat, the Spice Girls became the first female group to have nine number-one singles, and tied with ABBA as the group with the most singles to reach the summit." - as per MOS:IDIOM I'd reword "reach the summit", as it sounds strange even to me, a native speaker (why is nine number ones the summit?)

Rewritten Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The sentence afterwards says "They were placed only behind The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Cliff Richard and Madonna overall." - but the Beatles were a group, so why did the previous sentence say they were top, tied with ABBA? The source makes this all clear so it just needs rewording.

Rewritten Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Quotation " The first question for any Spice Girl co-writer or producer should be how you accommodate [sic] four (or five) very different voices" has actually spelt "accommodate" correctly - it's misspelt with only one 'm' in the source, so this should be changed in the quotation.

Sentence removed Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Another sic: ""We liked the theme ‘coz [sic] we’re all so different" - the author is writing in the dialect spoken, so I don't think this actually deserves a [sic]. I can't find any Wikipedia policy on that specifically though. That apostrophe should be the other way around as well.

Done Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• For the Critical Reception section, I think it would make it feel a bit more structured if you separated contemporaneous reviews (i.e. 2000-2001) from more recent ones. They don't need to be under separate subheadings, just different paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnet-Septagon (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Done Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@11JORN The lead now reads "The song was a commercial success, peaking at number one on the UK Singles Chart, becoming the band's ninth number-one single in the region, becoming the girl group with the most singles to reach the top of the charts." which is a badly-formatted sentence (two 'becoming' subordinate clauses). Everything else looks fine so I've just gone ahead and changed it to "The song was a commercial success, topping the UK Singles Chart and becoming the band's ninth number-one single in the region. This gave the Spice Girls the record for being the girl group with the most number-one singles." Feel free to reword it if you prefer. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

3b

• I think the thorough description of the music video (paragraph 2 of that section) is too much: there's already a link to the video on the page, and details on its production and reception, so I think it just adds unnecessary baggage. MOS:FILMPLOT does allow for this kind of thing, but the video is not the main topic of the article and I don't think it adds anything of value.

Garnet-Septagon I removed some bits, but in my opinion some description is necessary, as in this case it helps blind people that can't see the video to understand the context through screen readers. Alex ^{reach me!} 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed That's a reasonable compromise, the stripped-down version is certainly a bit more summary-style. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2023 (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.