Talk:I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sufur222 (talk · contribs) 16:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Looks very good, but let's see what little things still need ironing out.

Lead

• "It was written by Dido" → some context would be useful here. Everytime she is mentioned in the article, she is simply referred to as "Dido": however, in this case and in her first mention in the article body, something like "British singer-songwriter Dido" would be more helpful.
• "Spears performed "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" on her Dream Within a Dream Tour, and in several TV shows" → you perform "on" television shows; that language seems more natural anyway. To avoid repetition, I'd put something like "Spears performed "I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" as part of her Dream Within a Dream Tour, and on several television shows."

Background

• "the movie, that was later titled" → "the movie, which was later titled" reads more naturally.
• "while praising Dido for the songwriting" → I'd put something like "while praising Dido for her input into its songwriting", as otherwise it implies that she's being praised for the songwriting she didn't even do (as the sing has three credited writers, it makes more sense for this to be a more personal praise). This also avoids repetition of "song", as it seems redundant to follow it with "songwriting".

Reception Critical response

• "...called it a "well-executed ballad", while saying, "it comes across as..." → not exactly vibrant, and that two word clause reads a little awkwardly. How about "...called it a "well-executed ballad", while observing that "it comes across as..."
• "Jim Farber of the Daily News while reviewing the Dream Within a Dream Tour called the song "sugar pop dittie"" → quite a long clause. Break it up with commas into "Jim Farber of the Daily News, while reviewing the Dream Within a Dream Tour, called the song "sugar pop dittie".

Chart performance

• ""I'm Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" achieved moderate success." → in what respect? Be more specific – relate it to a synonym (to avoid repetition) of the section title.
• "Though it was meant to help promote Crossroads" → not sure what this clause has to do with "Chart performance". I see what you're trying to say, but the idea that it may have damaged the commercial prospects of the film seems an improper synthesis. I would remove it, unless you can find a source explicitly saying that this is the case.
• "and at number fifty-one in Canadian Hot 100." Ah. Seeing as the Canadian Hot 100 didn't exist until June 2007 (and the reference doesn't contain the position anyway) this is almost certainly false. The "Charts" table contains a different number, so remove both and the references claiming to verify them.
• To avoid awkwardly short sentences after this, change the sentence to "However, the song did manage to peak at number twenty-one on Billboard Pop Songs, and debuted in its peak position of number two in the United Kingdom.". I'm not sure where "after being on the chart for seven weeks" comes from: you seems to have confused this with the Eurochart Hot 100, which is what the Billboard article is referring to when it speaks of a seventh week. Add the Eurochart Hot 100 data into the "Charts" table accordingly.

Music video

• There are a few issues here, but I've given the section a quick c/e myself, so they should now be dealt with. Please tell me if there are any problems with what I've written.

Credits and personnel No issues.

Charts and certifications Apart from the comments based on the "Chart performance" section", only one issue → I would use a "Certification" template, as this looks neater and has a more well formatted reference. However, I'll do this for you, as it can be difficult to link templates in the article body.

References

• As specified above, remove ref 12 and the data it claims to verify.
• Ref 14 is made redundant by the Certifications template.
• Ref 20 → Don't SHOUT in ref titles.
• Refs 22 and 23 → don't work for me. Either find an alternate ref or an archived version of it verifying the content it's currently supporting, or take out the ref and its content altogether.
• A lot of the refs are missing their retrieval dates (the "accessdate" section of the template), especially the singlechart templates. As it's hepful to work out when content was verifiable if it goes down, add them for all refs (except ref 25).
• Ref 25 has a lot of completely empty and redundant fields, so they might as well be removed.

That should do it. If these issues are fixed, I'll be quite happy to pass the article, as it's quite well written and meets all the other basic criteria but just needs these wrinkles ironed out. I'll out the review on hold to allow these things to be fixed: if you have any questions regarding what I've written, please don't hesitate to question me. Good luck! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All  Done. I just did not understand what ref 25 you are talking about (the MTV, IMDB ones...) Jorn ^talk 12:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant to remove all of the empty fields in the reference, not the reference itself (I was referring to the MTV "Total Britney Live" reference). Restore the IMDB one, as the Yahoo! reference doesn't verify all of the appearances by itself. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I did not remove the MTV ref because I filled some of the empty sections. Jorn ^talk 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good now. In that case, I'll pass it. Good job! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)