Wikipedia:Peer review/Dirrty/archive1

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.

Dirrty

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to make the article get to FA status. I have removed unreliable sources and added information (see the article's edit history). Any comments on writing styles / references / etc. are really appreciated.

Thanks, Simon (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a good article at least. You did this article justice. :-) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9: Lol thanks, but my goal is to get this article to FA. Still not sure about the article's styles, grammar, language, etc. Simon (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Comment: @HĐ: The article is a very informative read, but I have a couple quick questions/comments that may be helpful:

In the lead, you convey a lot of information in a strong and concise manner, but some aspects should be fully developed. For instance, what part of the song's "styles" are the critics ambivalent towards? Why did Thai television stations ban this song? What do you mean by the phrase "her 'real' persona", is this "real" persona about sexuality? Obviously, convey the information in a concise manner as it is the lead, but there are some incomplete thoughts here.
In a majority of the articles about songs that I read, the lead includes information about the song's lyrics and what they represent. This is not present in this article beyond a mention of the song as "an R&B and hip hop song" and a "down and dirty" song. I understand there is not one right way of doing an article so this is more food for thought than anything.
Eliminate "however" in the lead. It is a weak transition and not necessary as the contrast is already apparent between the two ideas.
The phrase "consolidate her popularity" sounds a little off to me. I understand what you are saying, but I think a different verb should be used here.
I would suggest introducing Mya, Pink, and Lil Kim for an unfamiliar reader. Obviously, not too in-depth as they only are referenced in this sentence of the article.
The transition between the sentence about the song being done in the vein of a Redman song to his appearance on a diss track to Aguilera sounds somewhat awkward. I get the connection, but I would advise tying these ideas together with a stronger transition.
In the final sentence of the "Development" section, who is the person/source describing the title as a reflection of the music video? I would recommend being a little more clear here, especially since you are using a quote.
Italicize Stylus Magazine
I would recommend either 1) moving the information regarding the release into the "Background section" and renaming this section "Chart performance" or 2) clarifying "reception" as "commercial reception" as the current section is somewhat unclear.
How did Shakira and Jessica Simpson disapprove of the video? This may not be necessary for the article, but it reads somewhat unclear. Also change "disapproved her image" to "disapprove of her image".
Why is the Sarah Michelle Gellar parody listed twice (both in the "Reception and legacy" subsection of the "Music Video" section and in the "Live performances and media usage" section). Since it is a parody of the music video, I would recommend cutting the sentence from the media usage section as it is too repetitive.
I would change the verbs in the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the "Live performances and media usage" section as the repetition of the word "included" is somewhat awkward.
Was there any critical response to Ed Sheeran's cover of the song or Stephen Merchant's lip-sync of it?
For the "Credits and personnel" section, I would recommend using the subsection headings "Recording locations" and "Personnel" to separate this section and make it easier to read. Something similar to what is done on the page for Rihanna's S&M.

I hope my comments are helpful. Remember I am still very new to Wikipedia so take these comments with a grain of salt, but this is what I noticed when reading through the article and comparing it to FA music pages. This is what I gathered from a single reading so if you want more notes, feel free to ask. (I apologize for the length of this message ><) Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Aoba47 by Brainulator9

@Aoba47: Since I've been on the website longer, I can give my thoughts. Anything I don't mention I fixed.

The R&B styles were specified, so there.
The real persona is the one that hadn't been fabricated by Aguilera's manager. This was explained earlier in the sentence.
Hesitant to add the Lady Marmalade info due to being unnecessary thanks to context, but OK.
Nothing wrong with what exists for the transition.
Aguilera said that quote, so I fixed it.
Well, it is the same concept, so... any ideas for "included"?
No reception that I know of.
Not necessary since there's not much to split up.

The length's fine, since it's helpful. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help in any way. Good luck with taking this to GA and FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks! I just fixed the overuse of "included" (and "performed") in that section. So... it looks like the page is complete, pretty much. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9: Anytime! This page is definitely ready for a GAN and I am more than positive it will pass that relatively quickly. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the expectations for a FA (I am still pretty new on here so I still have to familiarize myself with the criteria), but I suspect that it is also very close if not already on the level expected for an FA. Again, good luck with this article. I can tell a lot of work has been put into it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I'm nominating it as I type this, hehe. Also, WP:FA? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9: I am glad to hear it! And thank you for the link! I previously attempted to nominate a page to become a FA without much success so I definitely need to familiarize myself more with the criteria. :-) Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2016 (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.