Talk:Me & the Rhythm/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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.

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

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming tomorrow... Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

October 2, 2015 to iTunes and other digital download platforms as the album's → In the lead, we don't need such an exact description of where it was released; please shorten to "October 2, 2015 for digital download as the album's..."
Gomez has called the song a personal → change "the song" with "the track" to avoid the repetition of words
is a dance, disco, R&B and synthpop song → is a synthpop-influenced dance, disco and R&B song

That's saying something entirly different. Is that what the sources reflect? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: Sorry, it was my mistake, you can leave it like it is. I also agree with your other points in the review. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and "smoky" synths throughout its instrumentation → Remove "throughout its instrumentation"
with praise directed towards its vintage disco sound → with praise directed at its vintage disco sound
The track was included on the setlist for Gomez's 2016 → It was subsequently included on the setlist for the singer's 2016

Infobox[edit]

Image needs ALT text

Recording and release[edit]

of "Good for You" on music charts worldwide → of "Good for You" on music charts worldwide in [YEAR] (for context)
with label representatives → of which label?
Me & the Rhythm" was written by → syntax error in the song's title
Unlink all the writers in the same sentence and only refer to them by their last name
while John Hanes was the mixing engineer" → syntax error; remove the "
It was recorded and mixed in Wolf Cousins Studios → It was recorded and mixed at Wolf Cousins Studios
is a lot like Justin and I → is a lot like Justin [Tranter] and I; this could be confused with Justin Bieber
We need the exact release date of "Me & the Rhythm", the format and the label(s) accompanied by a reliable source
Release year for "Same Old Love" in brackets

Composition[edit]

as a dance,[10] and disco song,[11] R&B[12] with → as a dance,[10] disco,[11] and R&B song[12] with
consisting of deep house beats and steel drums,[14] smoky synths and pulsating percussion → consisting of deep house beats, steel drums,[14] smoky synths and pulsating percussion
Zach Dionne of Fuse compared the song → change "compared" with "likened" to avoid word repettion
album Emotion and Digital Spy's Lewis Corner → album Emotion; Digital Spy's Lewis Corner
Meanwhile, Mike Wass of Idolator → Remove "Meanwhile,"
Link "Idolator" to its article
noted that the song is "the most obvious → past tense

Again with the past tense that I noted elsewhere...not really agreeing with it.

is about losing one's inhibitions and losing oneself while dancing → is about losing one's inhibitions while dancing
gives "a Janet Jackson-esque speaking verse → syntax error

Critical reception[edit]

"simplicity and sophistication" to the songs's production → say "track's" to avoid word repetition
highlighted that the song is "a pop anthem → past tense

That doesn't make sense to me. Why is this more appropriate? It's not like the song is gone forever. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[e]qually as catchy as her first single, → link "her first single" to her debut solo single

There's ambiguity to this statement that makes me uncomfortable doing this. Is she referring to Come and Get It or Good for You?

noting that it has got a seductive → noting that it had a seductive
while declaring that the song → while declaring that it (repetition)
italcize "Revival" in the following quote

Commercial performance[edit]

peaking at number 106 → reaching number six (we're talking about the Bubbling Under, not the Hot 100 here)
on the (French SNEP Singles Chart) → on the French Singles Chart
On the Czech Republic and Slovakia → On the Czech and Slovak
Singles Digitál Top 100 chart the song → Singles Digitál Top 100 charts, the song
number 83 and 68 → numbers 83 and 68

Credits and personnel[edit]

Credits and personnel adapted from Revival album liner notes → Credits adapted from the liner notes of Revival
Unlink "liner notes"
Unlink "Selena Gomez"

Charts[edit]

Everything fine here ;)

Other stuff[edit]

Copy-violation[edit]

23.7% is a very good score!

References[edit]

As far as I checked them, the references do cover the assertations made in this article
No dead links! Good job!

Outcome[edit]

On hold for 7 days. Still has some significant issues, but they can easily be fixed in the given time span. Good luck and best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? -_- I only nominated this because I believed it was perfect and it shouldn't have been delisted to begin with (WP:DENY is a terrible excuse to delist, and there should've been more discussion on it). Oh well. I may or may not complete that in 7 days because my other noms have priority, but I'll get it eventually. dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: I can surely give you more time to edit, and you can maybe consider asking someone else to adress my concerns if you want to. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done everything that does not have a query or a "working" marker next to it (I think). dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: Remember you still have to work on some sections. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should be finished now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing! Congratulations; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.