Talk:Music (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: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 16:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Initiating review of this nomination which could take a day or two to fully start. Let me know when you are ready to start and possibly you could mention if this was among the last of Madonna's superhits after her string of hits from the 1990s. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this and Madonna has had super hits after "Music" also, so no this wasn't the last. There was "Hung Up", "Sorry" and "4 Minutes" to name few. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That question I think was more directed at how this track did in comparison to the current "Beautiful Game" performance on the charts. Set up of main review could take another day or two to fully start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You are completely mixing apples and oranges @JohnWickTwo:. "Beautiful Game" is not even a confirmed track so not sure why are you even bringing it up here. Let's concentrate on the review and the performance of "Music". To answer your last question at the bottom of the page, no we do not need to include any trajectory for previous or successive songs as thats WP:UNDUE and WP:CHARTTRAJ is forbidden. JohnWickTwo, I believe this is the first time you might be reviewing a song article also right? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: If this was a misunderstanding on your part then to clarify here my comment had nothing to do with Undue or Chattraj, nothing at all. Wikipedia articles in media and in music are filled with top ten lists and this is no different here for this song review than for other forms of media. My question to you was to find out where in the list of Madonna top hits to place "Music". If you are displeased with my references to comparisons of the song "Music" with respect to other Madonna hits and singles or if you feel that in your opinion that this review has been in any way written in bad faith, then I am prepared to quick close this review without prejudice at this time and you can seek another reviewer. If you wish to continue then I am prepared to treat this review as I have multiple other reviews which I have done in media. If you are not prepared to continue this review as being done in good faith then I am prepared to do a quick close at this time without prejudice and you can relist the article for another reviewer. If you wish to continue in good faith then you may say this at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

JohnWickTwo, where did I say that I found this review to be in bad faith? I did not think it to be bad faith in any way so chill. I always encourage a healthy review where the reviewer is more interested in knowing about the article. You were the one who brought up "Beautiful Game" which is not even a Madonna song released currently. So I thought either you are not aware of her career (which is absolutely fine) or it might be your first time reviewing a music article (which again, is absolutely fine, we all learn one day). To answer your questions, "Music" placed in multiple top-ten or so called critic lists and they are given in the accolades section. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Set up full review outline

0 Lead section

Repetition with main article for the album version which contains this song should be avoided. A link should be considered to the main article for the album somewhere right at the start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is repetition? The lead is a summary of the content in the article and at present I strongly see it as a summary, there is nothing in the lead that suggests its deviating into the album article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

1 Background and writing

Somewhat repetitive with the background for the main article for the album which contains this single. The repetition should be avoided as being redundant and the main article might be linked from here also. This article on the song appears to start in the third paragraph here, and the first two paragraphs seem to be repeated information. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs somewhat brings how Ahmadzai came into picture. I have trimmed it down but context is needed. Not all background for singles would solely be just about the song, a part of the album process will always come into the picture, especially with something like a lead single, which kind of sets tone for a record release. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

2 Recording and composition

Can some of the wording be reduced here and perhaps better explain the references to the song as being "experimental" and "underground". JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reduced some of the wording and moved around. But I'm not willing to drastically reduce anything, the section is quite well-researched and usually for songs we never get that much of information. The prose is quite simplified from the reference material and I have paraphrased it completely for a layman to understand. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

3 Release detail and leaks

Not clear why the leak is being reported here in such detail. Was this part of the lawsuit intended to dismantle large parts of Napster, or, is there some other reason for so much detail. Possibly shorten this material. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes as the section says, it was widely reported in the media and is detailed per WP:LEAK, but I get your point and I have trimmed some of it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

4 Critical reception

Adequate to article. Should the video discussion be brought higher up into this article, before reception and chart performance are discussed? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Video receptions are kept in the video section and not merged with the song's reception. Video is a promotional tool usually, while a single is connected to much bigger connotations. Featured articles like "4 Minutes", "Diamonds" and many more follow this format. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

5 Chart performance

Adequate to article. Should this section appear below the Music video section? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Again no. The sections are more chronological in placement. If you see the beginning of the section, it notes how prior to the official promotion to radio in July 2000, the song started gaining traction. But music video was not even released till August 2000. —IB ^{[ Poke ]}

6 Music video

6.1 Conception and filming

Would be nice to get discussion of Cohen into the first paragraph of this section rather than waiting for the second paragraph to discover his central involvement. The official video version on YouTube also seems to flash a sequence of one word banners throughout the film as --Dance--Crazy--Together--Rebel--Acid-Rock-- what do they mean or are they random? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I have rearranged them. To answer your question regarding the word banners, I also thought if I could find anything about them. But no sources mentioned anything. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

6.2 Release and reception

Not really sure why reception for video is separate from reception for song on CD, since these usually go hand in hand. What is the last release where the song version did well but the video went poorly, or vice versa. If the music section is moved higher in the profile of the article, then you might be able to merge and reduce the size of two similar release sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

See my previous response regarding why its not fruitful. To answer your questions, there are countless examples, within the Madonna articles, where this happened. "Like a Prayer", "Justify My Love", "What It Feels Like for a Girl" and etc. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

7 Accolades and recognition

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

8 Live performances

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

9 Cover versions and media appearance

Nice tribute section. It might be worth mentioning the remix by Boral Kibil which has 8M hits on YouTube. Also, there were minor club version covers done in 2005 by Rostany and in 2013 by Antti Tuisku, of optional interest. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you but first lets see if they pass WP:SONGCOVER or not. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

10 Track listings and formats

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

11 Credits and personnel

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

11.1 Management

11.2 Personnel

12 Charts

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

12.1 Weekly charts

12.2 Year-end charts

12.3 Decade-end charts

13 Certification and sales

What are the comparison numbers for the song for profits and popularity, and where do the comparison numbers fall in comparison to her other hits, the ones just above it, and just below it. See comments for Release and Reception above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't see how that is relevant. We have already included sales and all wherever applicable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: That should get things started. Let me know when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: I have responded to your review comments. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment

This article deals with a twenty year old song by Madonna by an author with experience with her as an artist. The article's images seem to all check for fair use and public domain. The cites for the article are all formatted and offer a reasonable coverage of the literature available, and the article is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 06:26, 28 June 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.