Talk:Hurt (Christina Aguilera song)/GA3: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
===Certifications=== |
===Certifications=== |
||
*You should add the reference in here as well, to back up those US sales. |
*You should add the reference in here as well, to back up those US sales. |
||
*Remove the platinum certification in US, since it has only been certified gold so far. Having sold one million copies is not the same as being certified by the RIAA. |
|||
===Notes & References=== |
===Notes & References=== |
Revision as of 20:57, 26 May 2016
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm User:MarioSoulTruthFan and I'll be reviewing this article.
Lead
Background and release
- Use –, instead of -.
- which was released in June 2006 - no need for this information.
Composition
- Flawless the description.
- The sample needs to be shorter. See WP:Sample.
Critical reception
- Describing the song as a "the centerpiece" of Back to Basics's second disc, About.com reviewer Bill Lamb gave the song a five out of five stars rating, commenting that the song "does not always fit easily into the typical pop radio, but it is a song that is very likely to generate significant listener requests." → If I remove the sentence that is between commas, the whole phrase makes no sense, who is commenting?
- "over the top" (OTT)" → He didn't called it "over the top", he called it "OTT", then you can put between brackets (Over the top).
- When the reviews change from "good" to "bad". You should say "In a mixed review, or in a negative review"...something in this vein. Otherwise, there is no division and it all seems good/bad.
- "Rolling Stone magazine's Jenny Eliscu called "Hurt" an "incongruous schmaltzfest," while Thomas Inskeep from Stylus Magazine named "Hurt" an "overblown" ballad. The song was deemed by AXS as Aguilera's best song". → You have bad reviews getting worse and worse, which is great (for the article decadence, don't get em wrong) and then something like. "The song was deemed by AXS as Aguilera's best song", it disrupts the whole section. Besides that, when was it named the best song? Whe? In this album of all time?
- I don't understand why there is a picture of her performing live the song in this section of the article.
Chart performance
- I would expand it a bit more. With dates, peak positions in other countries, how many weeks it spent on the number one spot in US Hot Dance Club Songs. You could add the silver certification in the UK.
Music video
Background
Synopsis
Reception
Live performances and covers
Track listings and formats
Credits and personnel
Charts
Weekly charts
- The 2009 chart table should have the same length as the 2006-2007.
Year-end charts
- Fine.
Certifications
- You should add the reference in here as well, to back up those US sales.
- Remove the platinum certification in US, since it has only been certified gold so far. Having sold one million copies is not the same as being certified by the RIAA.
Notes & References
- I have to be honest it's the first time I see references with the name "Notes". You can put everything under References and when you have "Notes", replace it with "Footnotes" and "References" with "Sources".