After improving the article, I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get feedbacks for this one to be ready for a GA or FA nomination.
Thanks,
--βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Media review by Ilse@
editAll media used in the article are non-free media. I think only one cover, one music sample, and one video screenshot can be considered to contribute significantly as mentioned in WP:NFCC Policy #8. I believe that the following two items should be removed from the article:
The other three items need an improved purpose of use description. I would suggest:
For the single cover: "To visually identify the cover of the single "Gimme More" in the infobox of the article Gimme More."For the music sample: "To aurally identify the single "Gimme More" and Britney Spears' style of voice as discussed in the section Music structure of the article Gimme More." (On the side: I think the section heading 'Music structure' does not cover all the section's contents.)For the video screenshot: "To visually identify the music video of the song "Gimme More" in the section Music video of the article Gimme More."
Consider using {{non-free use rationale}} on the description page of the sound sample.
The caption of Image:Gimme More - Music Video.PNG can be improved with some information about the style of filming or setting of the video, in line with the text of the Music video section.
When you have any questions concerning non-free media, maybe my non-free use help can assist you. Or feel free to leave me a message. – Ilse@ 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
All is done except the caption. Please review if its fine and crash out the request. Also, the other screeshot, I think it would be detrimental to remove because it further depicts the nature of the music video (e.g. the two roles used in the video, brunette and blonde Spears). If its not ok, please tell me. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to "visually identify" the video twice. I made two edits in the article, I leave it up to you to leave it or change it again. – Ilse@ 12:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's fine. Thank you for assisting. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 13:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the prose, of the lead. I think some more terms could be linked like studio album, debut, radio, digital store, Australia, pole dancing, critic, recorded, produced, choreography, performance, media, studded belt, tattoo etc. . . .- I can't find any possible link to digital stores. If you, please wikilink it.
I think the term views should be reviews and that might be linked as well.tune might mean melody, harmony, instrumental or some such term which should be linked.- hit radios and digital stores sounds slangy and unencyclopedic.
was seven-month old s/b either was a seven-month old or was seven-months old.penned again slangy."breathy vocals" and chiefly incorporates an "uptempo" and "danceable club-friendly beat" --Any linkable terms to help me out?"voyeurs crying crocodile tears" is this slang or just stuff that needs links for me to understand.- I removed it. Anyway, its a quoted material.
- Are any of the versions in the Track listings and other formats section new recordings or were they all remixed from the original. Do you have the official date and studio location of the original recording. That could be added to this section.
Should Official versions and remixes be a separate sections. Do the recording times have to mesh with the above section. Some don't. See Paul Oakenfold Remix for example.- I merged it and removed some.
released to radios s/b released to radio stations or released for radio airplay.s/b along with Santana's--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)