Talk:S&M (song)/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead section, "albums" -> "album's". In the background section, remove quotation marks from "tweet". In the composition section, the word "magazine" after Spin is unnecessary. In the music video section, it says that "Rihanna also co-directed the video". Since this isn't mentioned anywhere else and only Melina is listed, I suggest adding "According to Perez Hilton" to clarify this.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead section, "At a first retrospective, the lyrics of the song suggest it to be about Rihanna declaring her sexual pleasure, however the underlying message is of her relationship with the media. Rihanna said that the song is not about sex, but represented her sadomasochist relationship with the press." The two sentences explain the same thing. Consider uniting the literal meaning of the lyrics (sexual pleasure) with Rihanna's interpretation (her relationship with the press). "Reception of "S&M" has been mixed", yet you are only explaining the negative criticism of the song. "The song's accompanying music video [...] was shot in Los Angeles", is the fact that it was shot in Los Angeles relevant enough for it to be included in the lead? Wikilink "fetish" to sexual fetishism. Information regarding censorship in S&M should be united with the critical reception. Consider taking a look at If U Seek Amy. The third paragraph is too crowded. Since there were many more live performances of the song than the debut at the BRITs, you should consider another paragraph for them like the one in Bad Romance. The background section actually consists of information about the remixes. I did a quick Google search and found no information about the actual writing or recording process of the song, or any comments from the producers. The remixes deserve a section on its own. I suggest you take a look at the way the sections were done in Till the World Ends and Born This Way (song). If the background section ends up being too short, consider mixing it with the composition section. In the critical reception section, wikilink Cinemax and Chris Brown. Digital Spy is a website and therefore should not be italicized. In the chart performance section, Britney Spears is overlinked. In the music video section, remove links to USA Today and S&M as they are already present in the article.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
As I mentioned above, my main issue is that there needs to be a section for the remixes, including those comissioned by the label, the J. Cole one and most importantly the Britney mix. It should also include critical reviews, I found a couple for TTWE so it shouldn't be a problem for S&M. Also, in the MTV article with Perez Hilton there's a lot of information about the themes and style of the video. Regardless of who he is, he was part of the shoot and therefore his comments should be featured.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the other concerns except the paragraph about the remix, which I have notified the reviewer about its problems. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I added a whole para about the R&B mix, lol. Xwoma, can you check if its fine dear? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is passed, congrats! :) Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]