Wikipedia:Peer review/Better in Time/archive1

Better in Time[edit]

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 would like to nominate it at WP:GAN, but I would like to know what is missing, esecially with the prose. Many thanks, Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This isn't quite ready for GAN, but it can get there. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

I've never written an article about a music single, and I don't know exactly what the criteria are. Even so, it appears to me that the existing article has too many tables and that some of the information in them is repetitious or unnecessary. For example, "Credits and personnel" includes details about two songs other than "Better in Time"; if you deleted those details, the list would become much more succinct.

As a double A-side both song's personnel are needed, since those are discussed in the article, the same for "You Bring Me Down". Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's often helpful to look a featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. WP:FA#Music has quite a few articles about singles. I've looked at several to examine the tables and charts, and they tend to be fairly simple and straightforward. See Hey Jude, for example.

Passive voice. The article includes passive-voice sentences that would be stronger in active voice. For example, "Background and composition" begins with "On 29 January 2008 the announcement that "Better in Time", along with "Footprints in the Sand", would be launched as double A-side singles on 10 March 2010 was made by Lewis's website." Much punchier would be: "On 29 January 2008, Lewis announced on her website that "Better in Time", along with "Footprints in the Sand", would be launched as double A-side singles on 10 March 2010." The next sentence reads, "Later the next month, they were selected as the official singles of the 2008 Sport Relief, a biennial charity organized by Comic Relief and BBC Sport." Better would be: "Later the next month, 2008 Sport Relief, a biennial charity organized by Comic Relief and BBC Sport, selected them as their official singles." I'd suggest going through the whole article looking for similar passive constructions and re-casting them in active voice.

Both changed, but I'll left the GAN reviewer to check it. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found and fixed a few small errors, but I'm sure I didn't catch them all. It would be good to enlist the aid of a proofreader or copyeditor before heading to GAN.

Thank you for that, I'll take care about that. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"It was written by Andrea Martin and J. R. Rotem, and produced by the last." - Active and slightly more clear might be "Andrea Martin and J.R. Rotem wrote the song, and Rotem produced it."

Not done "and Rotem produced it. It was..." the double "it" does not sounds good. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrically, "Better in Time" tells the history of a girl who cannot forget her ex-partner, and after all she knows that "it will all get better in time. - Maybe "and who knows that... " would be more clear.
added Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The single achieved to be certified gold... " - "Achieved to be" is a bit awkward. Maybe just "was"? Ditto for the same construction a couple of sentences later?

changed. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"after all she knows that "it will all get better in time". - Direct quotations, even if they are repeated in the main text, need in-line citations. One way to avoid having to source them twice is to paraphrase them in the lead and use the direct quote only once, with an in-line citation, in the main text.

The lead should summarize the article, sources are not needed there because it is supposed that they are in the text. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"it shows how Lewis performs in front of 'unrelated photographic set-ups' and shows what goes on behind the scenes." - It's not clear what the meaning of "unrelated photographic set-ups" might be. It's also not clear what "shows what goes on behind the scenes" might refer to. Specific examples would help make these two concepts more clear.
I'm not an English speaker, but I understood the term "unrelated photographic set-ups"— in words of the BBC—. The writter tried to say, like television or a film set, that it was based on what's going on the set while Leona is in it. Personally, I would add this description, but is WP:OR. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance

"Better in Time"/"Footprints in the Sand" - The Manual of Style suggests using something other than the front slash for combinations like this. Would "Better in Time" and "Footprints in the Sand" be OK?

changed. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"While "Better in Time" entered to the country chart... " - "Entered to" sounds odd. Delete "to"?

removed. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The image of Lewis with the horse is awfully dark. Is it worth keeping? Couldn't the concept of "unrelated photographic setup" better be explained in words? What is the point of these setups? What are some of the others?
try the previous .Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track listings and formats

Replace front slashes with "and"?

Done Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Something is missing from the title in citation 3.

Fixed Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

This probably should be renamed something like "Works cited".

Not done Unneeded. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The book data should include the place of publication.

Done Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]