Wikipedia:Peer review/Like a Virgin (song)/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because, having closed the Peer review for 'La Isla Bonita', I can finally request one for 'Like a Virgin'; I'm interested on taking this article to FA status and would like and need all the help I can get :)
Thanks, Christian (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Bdhamilton:
- Caveat: I’m a relatively new editor, so I don’t have a good grasp of the FA criteria. But here are a few things I noticed that could be improved:
- The lead feels too long and cumbersome. Some details (e.g., “Venetian vitality”) ought to be postponed until the relevant section the article.
- I also think the lead needs some inline citations, particularly where it makes claims that sound like POV (“the song’s lyrics are ambiguous”) or that might be challenged (“turned her into a superstar”).
- As a matter of style, it seems to me that semicolons are dramatically overused throughout the article. Most would be better as periods.
- The ‘Recording and production’ section is too quote-heavy.
- The first paragraph of the ‘Composition and lyrics’ section could be better organized. Right now, it reads like a bulleted list in paragraph form: a series of disconnected facts about the musical structure of the piece. It would help to move things around and add some transitions so there’s a logical flow to the presentation. The same is true of the whole ‘Release and critical reception’ section.
- A tiny point: the Corriere della Sera seems like a strange main source for the total number of worldwide sales at the end of the ‘Commercial Performance’ section.
- I wonder if some further division of the ‘Live performances’ section is in order. The ‘Other performances’ section is long and without a clear organization—not even chronological.
- A significant number of quotes have been heavily modified with brackets and ellipses in order to fit the prose. It’s distracting to read. In my opinion it would be better to quote less, and just to pull out the key words or phrases that support the particular point being made.
- There are a few other things I’d note, but that’s all I have time for at the moment. I’ll try to loop back and say more later. My one overarching suggestion is to impose more editorial order and voice within particular sections, even at the cost of including fewer quotes. This is an extensively researched piece, that’s clear, but sometimes it feels like the results of that research are just being listed out rather than explained.
- Great work so far! Hope something in there is helpful. —Brian (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Chrishm21: to ensure that they saw the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Since there was no response to my ping above, I am going to close this PR. A new PR can be opened once the above are addressed or considered. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)