Wikipedia:Peer review/Toxic (song)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it from GA to FA.
Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Bradley0110
- Background
- " it was announced by MTV News" Is that important?
- How is it not? Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- That it is Spears' favourite song would be better in the Legacy section.
Done
- " it was announced by MTV News" Is that important?
- Composition: Some of the critical reviews don't quite gel with the other text, and look like they've just been slapped in there; the Spin quote works as does the Nick Southall analysis of the lyrics, but I don't see why the IGN quote is there.
- Done
- Critical reception: This section reads like a series of endless quotes lined up together. You should structure the section by theme, e.g critics' opinions on lyrics, style, relation to artist's other work. Only use quotes where you can't recast the opinion into your own words (otherwise you just wind up with "so-and-so of Blah magazine said this, so-and-so from Bluh website said that").
- That's the standard for song articles though? I based it on 4 Minutes (Madonna song).
- Chart performance: This is good but the sales figures should be "as of".
- Done
- Music video development: This section is quite informal and anecdotal. You can recast it to focus more on the making of the video rather than the opinions of Joseph Kahn with just a couple of word changes. For example, instead of "He explained that he was marveled at how she approached him with a fully formed idea for the video, down to the smallest detail, exemplifing the scene in which she drips water in the passenger's lap." have "Spears approached Kahn with a fully formed and detailed idea for the video, exemplifying the moment she drips water into the passenger's lap." Try this in the rest of the subsection.
- Done. Also expanded it.
- Synopsis: This is good. The comparisons to other videos and to films are well placed.
- Release and reception
- "The music video premiered on MTV's Making the Video on January 13, 2004.[53] The following day, Spears appeared on TRL to premiere the video." It premiered twice?
- Done
- I know there's a link to it but a short reference to "Janet Jackson's Superbowl incident" would help readers. Placing "in which Jackson's breast was exposed on live television," after the comma should be enough.
- Done
- "Critics at the time received the video as Spears's answer to her ex-boyfriend Justin Timberlake[...]" This is quite a weak sentence and the citations don't quite fit; what form does this "answer" take? Do you mean like an answer song? Callahan and Farber say "Rumors are swirling that the erotic kissoff is her stab at revenge on former squeeze Justin Timberlake, who is now with actress Cameron Diaz." which isn't their own opinion, rather it is reported rumour. The Vineyard article makes reference to "Cry Me A River", although you've only quoted from the article title, which could have been written by a subeditor rather than Vineyard herself.
- Done
- "The music video premiered on MTV's Making the Video on January 13, 2004.[53] The following day, Spears appeared on TRL to premiere the video." It premiered twice?
- Cover versions: Again, a good section, but hampered by the laundry list format.
- Legacy: Good first paragraph but are all the uses in television/film in the second paragraph necessary? I think it dilutes the rest of the section's accounts of the influence the track has had.
- Moved it up to the Cover versions section.
