Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cups (song)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Cups (song)

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get it to FA status. I have already had 2 unsuccessful attempt.

Thanks, The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SandyGeorgia, said they could help.

Will look in tomorrow or next day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE, when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG

edit

The Ultimate Boss, I am sorry about your frustrations at FAC. I hope you will find the general advice in my essay here instructive going forward. And I strongly recommend going through all of Tony1's writing exercises. Similarly, Mike Christie's WP:RECEPTION essay will be useful to apply to this article. Prepping an article to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer can take months of dedicated effort. Reviewing other articles at WP:FAC or WP:FAR is a good way to learn the standards.

I usually start reviewing an article at the bottom, checking for basics before moving on to prose. And I usually present samples only, leaving you to complete a thorough check. I am reviewing this version.

Citations and sourcing

Before appearing at FAC, your citations should be scrupulous, complete, and consistently cited. This means accurate titles, publishers, dates when available, and accessdates when websites were accessed.

WP:MOS
  • I am unaware if it is OK to put charts side-by-side like this; it seems to contradict MOS:SANDWICH, but I recommend posting to the question to the relevant WikiProject.
  • Attention to wikilinking is needed-- well into the body of the article we find a second WP:OVERLINK to Anna Kendrick, after she is mentioned unlinked just above it.
Prose

There are basic grammatical errors indicating that you might enlist help from WP:GOCE; I will give a few samples only:

  • "Cups" is a song by American singer Anna Kendrick from the soundtrack extended play (EP), More From Pitch Perfect (2013).
  • performed the song in Youtube, ... on youtube?
  • "Cups" uses lyrics from the 1931 song "When I'm Gone", which written by A. P. Carter and later recorded by the Carter Family.
  • What in the cited sources backs up the "most notably" wording here: the original has been recorded by many artists, most notably by Charlie Monroe.
  • "Cup game" is repeatedly mentioned but we aren't told what that is.
  • It picked up more attention ... is too informal for encyclopedic writing.
  • Also is almost always redundant and thoughts don't flow for one to the next easily in this sample paragraph ... It was also sent to radio stations and DJs. "It was first introduced" comes after it has already been sent to radio stations?
  • They ended up being so impressed ... again, informal, unencyclopedic tone, they were impressed
  • the track is sang by the Barden Bellas near a campfire and is turned into a ballad

These are samples only, not exhaustive. An independent copyedit looks like it could be useful here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

edit

A few comments from a quick skim:

  • "It incorporates a cup game in place of the percussion, inspired by Lulu and The Lampshades' viral cover on YouTube in 2009." - what's the importance of this? (e.g., why is it so important that it's the third sentence of the lead? - presumably it's due to the link with the song's title, but explain this)
  • " Kendrick admitted she had no idea the song would be used for Pitch Perfect" - why did she 'admit' this (was it secret?), and it's not clear what this means. Did the director use footage from the audition in the final movie without her knowledge or something?
  • "It was also sent to radio stations and DJs" - isn't this what always happens with singles?
  • Why is Anna Kendrick linked in the first sentence of the third para of the first section, after she's been referred to repeatedly?
  • The chronology of this section is also somewhat difficult to follow.
  • Does Kendrick have any musical training and/or previous success as a musician? It seems yes, but the article doesn't note this.
  • What's the story behind the song taking so long for the song to crack the top 10? Did it become a viral hit, or was it promoted when the movie was released?
  • The description of the music video seems overly detailed. Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments by JJE

edit

Image licence and rationale seem OK for me. What is up with the references that say {{{ and }}}? I concur that the description of the music video appears to be a little excessive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, Nick-D and SandyGeorgia, Thank you so so much for the peer review. I really appreciate all the comments you guys left. I'm just afraid it's going to be like "Everything I Wanted", it got a peer review and GOCE like people recommended, and it still got opposed! I spent months on that for nothing and I am really hoping that it doesn't turn out like that again. What do you guys think? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you at my essay above, and at Mike Christie's essay on how to improve Reception. All the advice you need is in them. It's been five days since you opened this peer review. When I am planning an FAC submission, I spend months getting other editors to pour over the article, making sure every possibility is looked at (MOS, jargon, prose, sourcing, etc). If you think the article is now ready for FAC, I think you are being unrealistic about FAC. I continue to strongly suggest that you read the advice in my essay and take it in board. Making myself an example, I know my prose is poor, so I have developed collaborations with at least a dozen editors who pour over my articles to fix prose before I submit them. You might start with Mike's WP:RECEPTION essay, and move on from there. You might also sit down and read the FAC page top to bottom, to understand what kinds of issues surface at FAC, and you might start wading in there so that you can begin to understand the standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, Nick-D and SandyGeorgia, I have fixed almost all the issues you pointed out. I just don't know how to replace the billboard chart links that are dead. I have also requested a copyedit like you recommended. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

edit

Sorry, I procrastinated this enough for you to adopt a new name.

  • Lead:
    • I am new to the topic, and would much prefer to first understand about the 1931 origins, and what kind of song it is, than three versions of an album, all with similar titles. (... and only later I understand that one of the titles is a comedy.)
    • In the sentence about billboard, I didn't remember what "It" meant.
  • Infobox:
  • Background
    • The image looks altogether abstract to me, and comes too soon for me to make sense of the caption.
    • What's in the caption (link to the group, a year) needs to be in the prose, for those who don't look at the caption first.
    • I'd like the year of the remix repeated rather than vaguely remembering and having to look at the lead again.
  • Critical reception
    • Wouldn't "Reception" suffice?
    • Is a review saying nothing but "charming" worth mentioning?
    • Can - in USA Today - a clash of "is" and "was" be avoided?
    • "saying it still hits one hell of a flat note": should that be a quote, or be "saying it still hit one hell of a flat note"? (I have no idea what the phrase, but that's probably just me.)
  • Music video
    • "The clip begins with Kendrick, as a server, standing in restaurant kitchen. takes it and lightly taps it on the table." Some cup seems to be missing.
    • good link to bridge (music), but it should come higher up when mentioned first
    • probably everybody but me knows what "flip cup" means

Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Cups_(song)/archive1&oldid=1026711374"