Talk:If U Seek Amy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the If U Seek Amy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

If U Seek Amy is currently a Music good article nominee. Nominated by Xwomanizerx (talk) at 03:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Britney Spears High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Britney Spears, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Britney Spears on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Britney SpearsWikipedia:WikiProject Britney SpearsTemplate:WikiProject Britney SpearsBritney Spears
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:If U Seek Amy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chase wc ⁹¹ 23:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the Background section's first sentence, there needs to be a period after "Oops!... I Did It Again." The remainder of the sentence should be a new one, beginning along the lines of, "This marked the first time..." etc. The critical response section is too scattered: one second, you're reading about a positive review, and the next, you're reading about a negative review. This section needs to be more organized. In addition, the reviews that call the song "a clockwork synth stomp" and a "sleazy electro groove" need to be removed as they do not actually review the song. When the article discusses a reviewer calling it the most outrageous song from the album, this needs to be made clear if it's a positive or negative review; if it's unclear, remove it.

In Chart performance, "On April 11, 2009 the song" → "On April 11, 2009, the song." "peaked at number nineteen on the Hot 100," → "peaked at number nineteen on the Billboard Hot 100" because there are several Hot 100 charts. "before getting to thirteen" → "before reaching the thirteenth position" or something similar. In the music video Concept sub-section, "while all the guys" → "while many men." "one of them dressed with the schoolgirl Spears wore," the word "outfit" needs to come after "schoolgirl." Remove the period at the end of the section. In the Reception section, "Everytime," "I'm a Slave 4 U," "Stronger," "Toxic," "Womanizer," and "If U Seek Amy" should be surrounded by apostrophes and not quotation marks as they are all mentioned within a quote.

The section Reaction to the song's lyrics should be moved to a subsection in the Reception section. (Actually, Reception should have the subsections Critical reception and Public reaction; Chart performance should be its own section.) In this section, "you know? [..] It's not about us" → "you know? [...] It's not about us." In the sentence where Common Sense Media is mentioned, again "If U Seek Amy" needs to be in apostrophes, not quote marks.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Not sure if the song being included on The Singles Collection needs to be mentioned here. For example, "4 Minutes" (article is FA-Class) by Madonna was on her greatest hits CD Celebration and that's not mentioned, and same for the GA-Class article for "Hung Up."
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There appears to be an ongoing dispute about whether the song's genre should be listed as electropop or pop.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The music video image may not meet WP:NFCC#8.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Sorry, but due to the ongoing genre dispute, I'm going to have to fail this GAN. This is, for the most part, a well-written article, however. Work on the issues I mentioned and try to reach an agreement on what the genre should be, and try for GA again soon.

Genre

Well, I corrected all the mistakes and since i'm trying to nominate the article again for GA, i feel like this issue should be discussed. In my opinion, the genre should be pop as various sources said that it is just influenced by other pop genres like electropop and synthpop. Xwomanizerx (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well that the genre should be Pop. I think it sounds more Pop than it does Electro. Songs like Womanizer, Shattered Glass and Mannequin have more of an electro pop vibe, and this song doesn't really fit that type of sound. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 18:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think electropop should be in the genre is because electro style of music was obviously incorporated into the song. It's not about more pop or more elctro. It's pop and electro, hence the genre electropop. I don't think Shattered Glass sounds very electropop at all, and If U Seek Amy sounds much elctropop than Mannequin does IMO. I think the genre of this song would be fine with Pop, electropop. There is even a category in the article titled Electropop songs. Oh, can someone let me know why it's so vital to leave electropop out of the genre? Britney's song Break the Ice is 2% electropop at the most, but electropop is still listed in the genre. of that song. If U Seek Amy is much more electropop than Break the Ice, but electropop shouldn't be listed in it's genre? Surelyhuman (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents, but I think the genre should be dance-pop. Chase wc ⁹¹ 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, should i list the article as Pop, Electropop?. Xwomanizerx (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not enough electropop in the song to have it listed as a genre IMO. I'd just put it as dance-pop since it incorporates elements of pop and dance music. But whatever consensus turns out to be, I'm all for. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked the article and I guess "pop, electropop" is fine. As long as the genre warring stops, everything should be okay. Try for GA again in a few weeks. Chase wc ⁹¹ 01:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink hammer

Interesting that she was holding a pink hammer during the live performance. That seems to be a reference to the Sonic the Hedgehog video game series, where a pink character called Amy has a giant cartoon hammer as her regular weapon. 86.131.98.77 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i noted the same and added that a while ago, but there are no references for it from a third party. Xwomanizerx (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:If U Seek Amy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Background section, "...who wrote hits for Spears first albums, including '…Baby One More Time' and 'Oops!... I Did It Again'. This marked the first time they worked together since her third studio album, Britney" ---> "...who wrote hits for Spears first albums, including '…Baby One More Time' (1998) and 'Oops!... I Did It Again' (2000). This marked the first time they worked together since her third studio album, Britney (2001)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Do the same for "...making Circus the first Spears album to have three top twenty hits since ...Baby One More Time (1999)" in the Chart performance section. In the Reception section, "Rolling Stone writer Daniel Kreps compared the party on the video to Eyes Wide Shut" ---> "Rolling Stone writer Daniel Kreps compared the party on the video to the 1999 film Eyes Wide Shut".
Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Music video section, "weren't" ---> "were not", per here. In the Concept section, "America's Newsroom" should be italicized, as it's a news program. The quote in the opening paragraph of the Reception section for the Music video is far too large (see MOS:QUOTE). Try writing some of Montgomery's quote in your own words if you can, or resort to using <blockquote></blockquote>.
I rewrote the first part of the quote and left only important sentences, so Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check, and well done on the Montgomery quote. :)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
~~In Reference 23, "Rolling Stone" should be italicized.~~
Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Is Bigwentertainment.com.au a reliable source?
I removed it. Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering about the source.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
~~File:Britney IfUSeekAmy.jpg and File:Normal If U Seek 663.JPEG need lower resolutions.~~
Uploaded files with lower resolutions. Done. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Xwomanizerx for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]