Talk:Piece of Me/GA2

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 12, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall its solid but I see some areas for improvement. "positive critical appreciation" should simple say positive critical reviews" or positive critical feedback"; "appreciation" is too subjective. This: "lyrics, often cited as one of the highlights" should say "lyrics, and it was often cited as one of the highlights" This sentence is poorly written and needs to be reworded, especially removing the confusing passive voice: The song was performed at The Circus Starring Britney Spears, in which Spears danced inside a cage representing a slave." Currently, it sounds like she didn't perform the song and the cage was a slave. This sentence belongs in critical commentary: "Bill Lamb of About.com commented that Spears's vocal delivery is a "brilliant vocal combination of sexy and angry"." The Critical reception section needs to be grouped by the kind of critique (going from better to worst) and maybe have a couple sentences that signal this. Maybe an introductory sentence that says "Critical response to Pieces of Me was largely positive, and several critics commented on Spears' reaction to media scrutiny." This sentence should be in that first paragraph "Alex Fletcher of Digital Spy said "Piece of Me" "is her 'Rehab': a two fingered-salute to the media hounds and an electo-thudding cry of defiance, warning us that this popstrel is not for turning. [The opening line] poops from a great height on anything Lily Allen has ever penned and reveals that it's been Spears who's been laughing hardest during her year of zany media antics". Also, the second paragraph should focus on just critique on the song production. This sentence is very poorly worded: "On the issue dated February 9, 2008, the song peaked at number eighteen." Huh? I'm not even sure what that means, but try to rephrase it in a way that is more clearly understood, like "the song peaked at number 18 the week of February 9, 2008."

I rearranged the critical reception section with reviews that are more about the lyrics in the first paragraph and reviews about the production in the second. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: This sentence needs a reference per WP:OR: ""Piece of Me" is an electropop song, performed in an insistent pop groove." The Critical reception section is particularly well referenced.

The "insistent pop groove" bit is mentioned in the following reference, which is the musicnotes.com page. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Excellent here. Really good.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

This article could really benefit from a once over by WP:COPYEDITORS. It's not bad, but there are little things that could be tightened up here and there. Overall, its a very thorough article that a lot of time, research and work has been put into. You're in the home stretch of it becoming a good article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been copy-edited by user Airplaneman. I think it's done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the reviewer disappeared, I'll do a review of this article myself, since it looks like the above have been finished. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what's left to fix in the article before it passes GA:

• The fair use rationale in File:Piece of me.jpg needs to be beefed up or the image needs to be removed. There's enough pics that I don't see what this adds anyway.
  •  Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The track consists of over-the-top vocal distortions, causing a split sound effect, making it difficult to discern which voice is Spears'." You use this sentence twice in the same section. Remove the second one and move the refs to the first use.
  •  Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The country Philippines is mentioned in the song. "Piece of Me" is written like a biography retelling Spears's mishaps, sung in nearly spoken manner." The Philippines ref just seems randomly thrown in and unnecessary. The section one feels like it's missing a word (sung in a nearly spoken manner?)
  •  Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Numbers beyond ten don't need to be spelled out. you can say number 18, 69, etc.
  • Are you referring to the chart performance section? I spell the numbers because it's common in other articles. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I mean in the prose itself rather than the tables. No big deal though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear}
• Ref #35 ("Britney Spears video clip for Piece of Me targets paparazzi") is a deadlink; replace.
  •  Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Once these are fixed I'll pass the article; it remains on hold until then. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything checks out now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)