Talk:Sorry (Madonna song)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting to review the article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written: See notes below. "vthe prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct"
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: See notes below. Fact-checked.
3. Broad in its coverage: standard topics/sections for a song article: Background, musical analysis, response/charts, performance, video
4. Neutral: WP:GAC: "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias." - The article treats the views expressed in the references fairly and without undue weight. See Conclusion for elaboration.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated: 2 Fair use images, 1 Fair use recording, several Creative Commons images: all appropriately attributed.

Signed maclean 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes as I review:

• "Background" 1st paragraph
  • "The original developed cut for the song was ultimately heavily remixed.[1]" - where in the reference does it say that?
    • Removed, keeping the remixed inspiration. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "Madonna played the song in different nightclubs, taking on the role of a DJ, just to understand which of the remixed versions of the song would appeal to the crowd and thus, the final version was chosen.[1]" - where in the reference does it say that?
    • Removed unsourced. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • "She played the song in different nightclubs, taking on the role of a DJ.[1]" - I still cannot find this in the reference. Could you quote for me what the reference says or tell me where to look in the Billboard article. --maclean 01:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm so sorry, I forgot to put that page number in the reference. It is there in pg. 35 with the heading "Madonna's Young Remixer". The quote says Not only did she show up as planned, Madonna also took to the DJ booth and played two of her records — Price's extended mix of 'Hung Up' and next single 'Sorry' — and even mixed them together. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "The song uses the same chord sequence as Madonna's 1985 song "Material Girl".[3]" - that is a powerfully weak reference.
    • I didnot fully understood what you mean by powerfully weak reference but About.com is an extremely reliable source.--Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The About.com article says "This is followed by "Sorry," which a friend insists uses the chords of "Material Girl," though I must confess that I don't really hear it." The reliability of About.com has been debated numerous times. The best answer I've seen is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com. "extremely"? --maclean 19:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I get what you mean :) --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• References: "Paoletta, Michael (November 12, 2005). "Dancing Queen: Madonna Gets Her Groove Back". Billboard (New York: Nielsen Business Media, Inc) 117 (46): 64." & "Caulfield, Keith (February 4, 2006). "Madonna: Sorry". Billboard (New York: Nielsen Business Media, Inc) 118 (5): 56." - Am I looking at different version of Billboard? Mine show pages p26-27 and p35, not 64 and 56.
  • Changed. The original numbers denoted the total number of pages of the magazine. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Background" 2nd paragraph "Lyrically the song has excerpts of different languages including French, Italian, Dutch, Urdu, Japanese etc.[5][6]" - what in this sentence is [5] = Village Voice referencing?
  • Removed the village reference, was there accidentally. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• References: please put the correct page numbers on the Billboard references.
  • Done. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Critical response" 2nd paragraph "Jason Shawhan of About.com compared the song to Madonna's 1985 song "Material Girl".[3]" - no, he didn't. "a friend" of his did. See above.
  • Removed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Music video" Wiki: "The music video, inspired by the television show Pimp My Ride" Source: "Madonna's incorporating a bit of "Pimp My Ride" into her video...The car-makeover show will be a component of her "Sorry" clip"
  • Wikified. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I did not mean to ask for it to be wikified. I meant what is written here "inspired" is quite the stretch from what the source is saying "incorporating a bit of" --maclean 01:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Live performances" - "...as part of the bedouin segment." - this is unclear to me. According to the wiki article, "bedouin" is a 'desert-dwelling Arab ethnic group'. Is that what is meant here?
  • That particular section had bedoiun themed dresses, music and imagery in the backdrops. Hence changed to bedouin themed.
• "Live performances" - "...called the performance as not the concert's highlights while commented that the remix backdrop "feels ecstatic..." - this is also unclear. I'm not quite sure what he is calling the performance. And there seems to be a tense shift in there.*"Live performances" - "'...a collage of Godardian weight..." - can a wikilink be provided to what 'Godardian' refers to?
  • Wikified to Agnès Godard, the cinematographer.
• "Critical response" - noting the similarity of the bassline to The Jacksons song doesn't need to be done twice.
  • Combined them together.
• "Critical response" - This section uses 2 paragraphs. I don't quite see why, though. They both seem to be using the 'x says this' type sentences throughout commenting positively (though some are neutral statements), and seemingly randomly, about the song. Is there a distinction between the 2 paragraphs that I'm not seeing? Is the first paragraph focusing on one aspect of the song and the other paragraph on another aspect?
  • A single paragraph.

Conclusion

The writing here is good. There was some trouble with the referencing which we sorted out. There is room for improvement (related to 'well-written' and 'neutral' criteria) in the "Critical response" section. I think it can be better organized along some theme. Right now, it seems like a lot of random quotes from the sources lumped together. Organizational possibilities can include: positive v. negative aspects, lyric v. music comments, quality v. style (neutral), comments on individual parts v. comments on overall effect, etc. However, the GA criteria only demands that the prose be clear and differing viewpoints be represented fairly, so this organizational issue is not a requirement of GA status, but should be considered for incorporation into the article. maclean 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)