The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Spoopy received a generally positive reception" → "The EP received generally positive reviews from
music critics" with the appropriate target and add what was praised
The lead could be expanded with more info since it is very short, such as the title quote from her; maybe try for two paragraphs?
Composition
Retitle to Background and composition since a lot of it is background info, unless you can find more on the respective sides and split to two sections
I won't not consider ay of this text background; all the content is related to the EP's songs and title. Background info would be a summary of Sharon Needles' prior work, EP conception, etc. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The EP is a collection of 6 Halloween-themed cover versions. This is just a fact, based on sourcing, we don't need Sharon Needles' confirmation. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The wikilink is redundant either way though and it was directly explained by her though, which certifies the fact. --
K. Peake08:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Sharon Needles has said of the song," → "She has said of the song,"
Not done only because my wording for the above request is slightly different and does not mention Sharon Needles by name, so doing so here is appropriate. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Use correct citation(s) to back up the writer credits, since you can only use info from fellow Wikis without using references if it's for the release year, writing credits need to be sourced and maybe use the credits for the EP or something?
I'd rather remove writing credits (which are just basic descriptions for each song based on their respective Wikipedia entries) than pump up the article with sources just confirming song credits. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)16:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, I've checked several digital music outlets for specific credits. I don't think any of the claims are contentious -- they are supported by the opening sentences and infoboxes of their respective articles, and users can easily click on a song title for confirmation or more information. If you feel strongly about removing, I will, but I feel like the text is appropriate for a summary of the EP's contents. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)22:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
You should remove since it's going as far as to give writing credits, which need sourcing and that would be too many refs to add. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Both of the imgs need alt text and remove wikilink on Sharon Needles for the first, plus not sure again about ex target and target drag performer to
Drag (clothing)
"
Pamela Anderson's (pictured in 2003) slow motion running" → "the
slow motion running of
Pamela Anderson (pictured in 2003)," on img 2 main text, with the appropriate wikilink
I meant switch only this part of the sentence, since it currently makes no sense with the brackets after Pamela Anderson's due to the apostrophe. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"Furthermore, Sharon Needles said of Alaska's involvement:" → "Sharon Needles elaborated, saying of Alaska Thunderfuck's involvement with the music video:"
That reads fine but needs the lowercase inserted in [] to verify that it isn't a direct part of the quotation; I copyedited this for you. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Shouldn't the Pamela Anderson info be written out in the opening para of this section, since this one is about reception not synopsis?
I tried to open with release and personnel info, followed by a general description, followed by more specific descriptions and critics' opinions. The Pamela Anderson thing is just in passing and not a description of the video in general. --
Another Believer(
Talk)16:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I do understand what you mean, it is fine actually since you only mention she recreates the character on the img and don't go into much detail. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
"the video "down right 'spoopy!'"" → "the music video "down right 'SPOOPY!'"" since that is what the quotation says, unless you use [] to show you edited it
Maybe try to add more reviews since there is only two right now which is not enough to verify if the reception was generally positive? Though I am suggesting to add that now for when you can add more reviews to back it up.
Sure you shouldn't use own words for some of these reviews at parts since there is a heavy amount of quoting?
Since there aren't many reviews to draw from, I think the current level of detail is fine. The section is just one paragraph, and I think the critics opinions should be given weight since they are the few who elected to comment on the EP. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Copyvio score is dangerously high at 85.6%; this can be fixed by decreasing the quoting from the EW ref
Do you have a specific suggestion here? I actually think the two block quotes present a lot of helpful and succinct detail. They are properly attributed. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)22:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I understand the two paragraphs are copied from the source, but they are attributed properly and specifically designated as quotes by the artist. Are they really a copyright violation if attributed properly? --
Another Believer(
Talk)15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I was
informed that formatting with citations should be consistent throughout, so publisher can't always be cited alongside work/website here therefore only use one at a time; things like Idolator are publisher anyway. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That's not even true, though. Idolator is the website and Hive Media is the publisher. The citations are formatted consistently. Unless you can share where a guideline says to use one or the other, I don't think further citation formatting is required. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)14:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Cite Pride.com as publisher instead for ref 2 and remove the other publisher
Are you sure The Fader link can't be used as a ref to add info in the body?
The only thing this source says about the EP is the following: "Earlier this month, Needles released Spoopy, a new collection of Halloween-themed songs including her very own cover of the iconic "Monster Mash." I don't think this is helpful for the article body, but I've included as an external link because related. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)15:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Final comments and verdict
On hold right now, but are you sure this article can be broad enough in its coverage... no offence, but not every article can become a GA so I'm unsure right now? --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, I know this article is shot, but I've included as much sourcing as I can find on the topic. I would say this entry is quite similar to some of the other digital releases by drag queens I've promoted to Good article status. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)16:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Kyle Peake, I found a source specifically about Sharon confirming all the album release dates. I've lowered the copyright score down to 73; keep in mind, part of this percentage is Sharon quoting the Urban Dictionary definition of 'spoopy', which I've removed outside the block quote but still counts as copied text. ---
Another Believer(
Talk)21:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Also, I'm not sure CultureFix.co.uk is a reputable publication, nor does the article say anything not confirmed by other sources. I've tried hard to get the copyright percentage down, but I'm trimmed the Spoopy definition, Universal monsters, and Baby Jane quotes as much as possible without taking out too much relevant context. Just reading the article, I feel like the current quote lengths and detail are appropriate, but I'm open to more specific suggestions. I'm hoping I've addressed your concerns but you may need to flag if there's anything left to address. Thanks again! ---
Another Believer(
Talk)23:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.