Talk:Party in the U.S.A./GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article. I'll keep editing this page as I go along. Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style[edit]

  • "The song was not originally meant for Cyrus to perform..." -- Do we know who it was intended for? Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, no. I scavenged the Internet for some time and could not find it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. Thanks for checking. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Composition section: "Swift's vocals span two octaves..." -- surely you meant to say "Cyrus"?
 Done
  • The first paragraph of the Composition section needs to be reorganized. Currently the order in which the info is presented is: time - genre - time - key - genre - key - instrumentation - vocals. Granted, my previous statement may have oversimplified the flow of that particular paragraph, but I do think the ideas need to be reorganized.
  • How? Right it's time - genre - arrangement details (interrupted by voice in a respective part) - instrumentation. I moved the belter chorus information toward voice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the problem is that the paragraph seems too choppy??? If we can't resolve this issue, then I'll just ask for a second opinion when I finish my review. Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Vicki Lutas of BBC, "Party in the U.S.A." has belter refrains." -- Why do you have to state the source in the text when you already have an inline citation? I suggest that you remove that phrase and join the sentence to the previous one (on instrumentation).
  • But do your really have to mention Bill Lamb and Vicki Lutas? I recommend the following: "Cyrus' vocals display an undertone of twang[13] and features belter refrains.[14]" Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • In the Critical reception section, "Erik Ensrst of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said the ___ was "ridiculously catchy"." -- I'll let you add the missing word.
  •  Done
  • "Mikael Wood of Entertainment Weekly was decided..." -- remove "was. Edge3 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • Second paragraph of the Music video section: at first, you have some really good transitions between different scenes of the music video. Words such as "commences", "later", "make their way", and "then" indicate a chronology. However, when you get to the sentence "She, standing on a swing...", there is no such transition, and the lack thereof makes the statement seem choppy.
  • I see your point but the word "appears" indicates a chronology, I think :) -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appears" is a verb, not a transition. ;) If there's no transition, then the reader might think that the jungle gym is shown in the scene with the flag mentioned right before. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same sentence ("She, standing on a swing...") needs to be recast. Personally I like to avoid commas when possible, because the use of too many phrases and clauses can confuse the reader sometimes. In this case, you're talking about the swing first before you mention the larger scene (the jungle gym). I would mention the jungle gym first, and (if you want to) mention that Miley is in the center afterwards. Edge3 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Maybe I should take a look at this video. On a side note, I do think you should attribute the video as a source; the entire paragraph currently has no inline citation. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to add the video as a source but then I was noted it was almost useless. It's like adding a source for the plot of a film or novel. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that makes sense. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Child psychologist Wendi Fischer told Newsday Cyrus was communicating to her fans that it is acceptable to pole dance, which, according to her, was unacceptable." -- When you say "according to her", are you referring to Fisher or Cyrus? The pronoun's antecedent is ambiguous.
  •  Done
  • In the Cover versions section, remove the "2010" from the parentheses and replace it with "released in 2010".
  •  Done
  • "In the episode, the characters perform the parody, themed about the city which the series is set in, Scranton, Pennsylvania, for the coordinating director of Sabre. Due their boss mispronouncing the word "Sabre", it ended without a rhyme." -- This is worded awkwardly and needs to be recast. Edge3 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...for the coordinating director of Sabre." -- This needs to be moved to the previous sentence, before "using an acoustic guitar". Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • Have you seen any negative reviews of this song? I'm just wondering because the Critical reception section summarizes mostly positive reviews. Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks for trying. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the end of Part 1 of my review. Part 2 comes tomorrow or later this week, when I check all of the sources. :) Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

  • "The song was chosen as the lead single from The Time of Our Lives, as Cyrus thought personnel were 'picking up on it'" -- While it's true that the song is the lead single for the album, the source interview does not indicate that the song became the lead single because Miley thought personnel were "picking up on it". Both facts presented can be independently verified, but the conclusion you draw from synthesizing them cannot. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Edge3 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In in the interview, she said that it was originally just for the clothing line but when people starting picking up on it, it became what it was (a single). -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source does not explicitly state that Cyrus made it the lead single because of the reception it got from the other personnel. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She said that at first it was originated for the clothing line, but when people starting picking up on it... (she doesn't continue the sentence). Since she had already discussed including it in the EP, the next step for the song would be a single release. So if it was first only for the clothing line, then, when people starting picking up on it, she made it into something that wasn't just for the clothing line (a single). It's not 100% explicit, but it's explicit to a sense where it's common sense. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cyrus was pleased with the song and selected it partially due to a need of tracks for The Time of Our Lives." -- Not supported by the source. Edge3 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the source, Cyrus is quoted saying "It was just something that I wanted to do and I needed some songs and it turned out for the best." I believe that supports it very much. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the intended meaning is vague. In the same paragraph, Cyrus is discussing the clothing line. Therefore, it is not clear whether she selected the single simply because she needed more songs for the album. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She says that she needed tracks. That suffices. What was discussed prior in the paragraph has nothing to do. It's not simply because of that. In the article, it says the word "partially". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you even need that sentence? It doesn't really say much. I mean, it says two things: a) She likes the song. So what? It's kind of expected for an artist to like their own work. b) She needed tracks for the album. Don't all albums need tracks? I say cut it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brackets are showing up on reference 9, so it needs to be reformatted. Edge3 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That brackets are part of the source's title and do not interfere with the format. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same thing happens in ref 19. Basically I'm recommending that you remove the brackets and the word "allmusic" from the "title" parameter. "allmusic" is mentioned in the "work" parameter anyway. Edge3 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brackets are part of the title but I can remove the allmusic mention. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. No big deal anyway... Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song arranges R&B and pop music elements" -- not supported by the source.
  • Yes it is. "He's colliding R&B with pop in the most aggressive way imaginable. You can hear it in Ke's frayed post-Uffie facsimiles, in Miley Cyrus' talk-sing phrasing and Jay-Z-referencing on 'Party In the U.S.A.'", the source says. It's toward the end. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed it is! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...contains small, loose influences from reggae" -- The source says only "loose, reggae-powered pop tune". The adjective "loose" describes the song, not reggae. Edge3 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • "The song's instrumentation consists of a clash between feathery jazz guitar chords and a booming synth bassline serving as hook." -- copied almost verbatim from the source. Also, "consists" should be changed to "includes", because we already know that there are drums as well. Edge3 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • You still haven't fixed the copyright issue. Try to use your own words to express these ideas. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortunately for Cyrus, these songs flee your brain cells..." -- What songs? Please be specific, perhaps by saying "the other songs in the album" or something similar. Edge3 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • Put "The other songs...", as Party in the USA is also a song in that album.

Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it's needed. Please re-read the quote. It says that "these songs are [...], which means 'Party in the U.S.A.' [...]." -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just chop it down to "Jaime Gill of Yahoo! Music called it a "breezily brilliant hit"."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He predicted it would broaden her fan base and help to slowly become an adult pop singer." -- Change to "...fan base as she slowly becomes an adult pop singer" to better reflect the source. Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
  • How do we know that Party in the USA is the lead single, if it doesn't come up first in the track listing? Do you have a source that explicitly says that this song is the lead single? This one says that "Kicking and Screaming" is the "lead track". Edge3 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lead single, if you read the article, is the first single released from an album, not the opening track. Therefore, "Party in the U.S.A." is the lead single from The Time of Our Lives. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how do we know that this song was the first to be released? Note that I'm not doubting your knowledge of the topic; I'm just stressing the importance of verifiability. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because no other song as released before. There is no note or source that indicates a release of another song before this. It was released first. I'm sure it stated somewhere, but I don't think a source is needed because it's just a little common sense because of what was stated previously. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's fine. WP:GACR doesn't require a source for this particular statement anyway.
  • "...Cyrus' bouncy attempt at Urban music" -- the source says "hip hop", not Urban Edge3 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it true that Urban contemporary music refers to a variety of different music genres, one of which is hip hop? Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I prefer "hip hop", since that's what the source said. Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it matters either way. Hip-hop is a subset of urban. Either way works. It's not worth arguing about or a reason to hold up a GA review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "After listening to the track..." sentence, I don't think changing the quote is a good idea; it obscures the original meaning of the source. I recommend: "Upon listening to the track, Lutas feels that 'suddenly you think someone else is in the room with you and you've got all the ingredients for, well, a huge party contained in one little song'." (Unless, of course, you have something else in mind.) Edge3 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done

Unfortunately, I've been rather busy over the past few days, so I apologize for conducting such a slow review. I should be posting more comments soon. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all of the work that you have put into this article, but I'm afraid that our personally held beliefs on several issues, including the semantics of various sources, are so resolute such that our disagreements cannot be resolved on this particular nomination. I'm failing it so that you may seek the advice of another reviewer on WP:GAN or the entire GA community on WP:GAR. Best of luck on your next step! Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Party_in_the_U.S.A./GA1&oldid=1049018697"