Talk:Party in the U.S.A./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ASL Version of Party in the USA

A highly-frequented (740,000+ views) video of Party in the USA being performed by one Stephen Torrence using American Sign Language, or ASL, has received much attention [Miley Cyrus - Party in the USA - ASL Song]. One source comes from a deaf and hearing disabilities site [on DeafHH.net]. I would like to hear some feedback on whether or not the video should be briefly mentioned somewhere in the main article. Thanks (If this has already been discussed and shot down previously, my bad). Hmccasla (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Hmccasla

Ripoff Guitar Riff?

Maybe I'm wrong (I doubt it) but if you listened to the opening riff from that song, isn't it from a much older (I think mid to late 90s?) song? I don't know what the song is called, but my dad used to listen to it all the time. Any confirmation?

Float On by Modest Mouse, released in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.21.215 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Hot Stuff, by the Rolling Stones (1976). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.213.236 (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of info 'miley won 6 Teen Choice Awards

Miley "winning* " 6 Teen Choice Awards dont matter as this article is about her song. Thus Im deleting that info.
.....* Miley aint win. Fox picked her 4 ratings. Read this screencap screencap. Who the fans actually chose we'll never know. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove that information. It was a part of a quote defending Cyrus' performance at the Teen Choice Awards. Also, your opinion of how Cyrus won her awards is irrelevant, and if she won them in a fan-voted awards show, it's safely assumed that she rightfully won each of her awards. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is being removed. It is mentioned once & doesnt need to be mentioned over & over. It isnt my opinon, it is FACT FROM FOX. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is only mentioned twice - once in the paragraph that discusses it and once in the lead, which is supposed to reiterate main details from the article. That quote was a main part of the article and the person was defending Cyrus' controversial performance.

Also, that link is a copyright violation as it is a screengrab of a copyrighted television program. Furthermore, it never stated that they picked the winners. Finally, I suggest you stop vandalizing by removing content from articles. Your edits to this page will be reverted, and if you continue, you may be blocked. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editng my comments. My link isnt a copyright violation bc it is evidence of what i am saying. If an editor who knows what they're doing says it is a violation, I will remove the link. I will not be blocked bc my edit is valid. Info IS NOT supposed 2 be repeated.70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then stop adding the screencap. It is a link to a copyright violation which is not tolerated here. I know fully well what I am doing, and comments like that are considered personal attacks which are also not tolerated. You are in breach of several Wikipedia no-nos - vandalism, personal attacks, and copyright violation. You should probably stop or you will end up being blocked for unproductive editing and incivility. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Get another person who is experienced bc we are just gonna keep disagreeing. Ive done no personal attacking. You're making sh*t up. You threaten me with blocking, & now you're crying foul? Get another editor who knows what they're doing. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what I am doing. You should probably note that many people get blocked around here for uncivil comments like that. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So Im supposed to believe you bc you say so? Well if that is the standard, I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING AS WELL!, & I typed mine in CAPS w an exclamation point so it mean more.LOL You see how silly this is?. Again with the crap. I posted nothing uncivil. You keep posting threats. Dont serve it if u wont eat it. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote to remove this argument. It is cluttering the talk page and, in my opinion, there is nothing else to be said that is valid or useful. I will go through with a delete within the next couple of days if there is no opposition. Hmccasla (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Hmccasla
You mean archive, right? If so, no objection. liquidluck✽talk 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

help us PLEASE. page content dispute

{{helpme}} Please review these edits. I organised the page, moved into into the sections I feel they go under. pokerdance will post what s/he did . Thanks.70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead was unnecessarily moved into other sections of the page, so I reverted those edits. The above IP user is making uncivil comments on this talk page saying that I do not know what I am doing and is repeatedly linking to a screengrab of a copyrighted program. Despite warnings for all three of the above, s/he continues to do so. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What you both are looking for is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. -- Ϫ 03:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1)Ive read that leads should be concise. The lead as poker had it had alot of info--& the info was on Miley's 1 performance of the song--not about the song! 2) poker threated me with blocking, but says Im the uncivil one. Asking for a more experiences editor is not uncivil nor is it a personal attack. 3) For purposes of example screengrabs are allowed, is what I thought. IMO poker has a problem w the link bc it shows that miley may not have won those awards bc of fan votes, but bc of fox executive. If there is a rule against screengrabs, I didnt know as Ive see screenrabs all over wiki. So if screengrabs are unallowed(or is the word not allowed?), my apologies. 70.108.112.176 (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't OlEnglish just say dispute resolution? Please see WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Content dispute on Party in the U.S.A. and someone will help us there instead. POKERdance talk/contribs 03:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I agree with Pokerdance, the article's lead just summarizes the rest of the info in the page and moving all of that is unnecessary. Those sections are not well done, it took what as already well written and well patterned into unnecessary sections. And as far to the uncivil comments 70.108.112.176 has used bad language and Pokerdance was not threatening the user, he only warned him some users have been blocked for that. Bottom line: The article needs to be reverted back to the way it was previously. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

pokerdance : Clearly I responded as OE was responding. Calm down.
ipodNano: Your bottom line is just your opinion. 70.108.53.177 (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it is "my opinion." That is the whole purpose of this page, to state and share our opinion. I'm sorry if I worded that offensively or like it was the only bottom line, it is "my bottom line." -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link for the EAR discussion as it has now been archived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#Content_dispute_on_Party_in_the_U.S.A. . 70.108.53.177 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Request of an ogg sample

I am requesting an ogg sample of the song for the "Music and lyrics" section. It IS NEEDED. I would do it myself, but I cannot download any program due to various reasons. Please upload the file if it is possible. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Music and lyrics" section

Please help with the music structure of "Party in the U.S.A." Add the notes and chord progressions if possible to help the article (with a reliable note sheet source). -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Grammar"

The grammar in the first two sections of this article is really bad. Can someone please fix it up because it won't allow me to for some reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.99.160 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The grammar of those two sections are well done. Nothing is to be fixed in my opinion. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re 222.154.99.160: If you are talking about the lead (the very first section on the page, above the table of contents), it looks fine to me, although the lyrics section could definitely use work, and the other sections have problems too. Please be BOLD and fix anything you see! Alternatively, write a more detailed post here (I.E. what exactly needs to be changed), and someone will fix it for you. Thanks for your comments! Liquidluck (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

A great deal of content was inexplicably removed with this edit, so I hit rollback. After looking again, it appeared it was part of an edit war and rolled back my first rollback, leaving at the version by 70.108.108.151 so as not to further the war. This note is just to explain the reverts. Liquidluck (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge "Release" and "Critical reception" = "Release and Critical reception".... Dennissell (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I think since release is a short section it should be merged into another like release history... Maybe it could be in critical reception but when the album comes out there will be far more reviews. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chart and peaks

I edited the name of the "Charts" section to "Charts and peaks." This was reverted a couple of times. My argument on naming the section as such is that the old title does not describe it well. It is not only a list of charts... it also shows the peaks. I wanted to post this up here to see who would argue or disagree to in my opinion a better tittle. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted information

I've deleted several points from the article, so I'm explaining each here:

  • "surpassing the success of previous song "The Climb"": I deleted this from the lead because it follows "The song became Cyrus' best charting single in the U.S." Obviously, if it is the best it surpasses all her other songs. Extra details belongs in the article, not the lead.
  • "released to digital retailers beginning on August 11 to selected countries.": I changed digital retailers to iTunes, because the citations are iTunes, and the song/EP will only be released through iTunes and Wal-Mart according to the press release. Even if the pr didn't say that, we can only paraphrase what is given in the citation per WP:SYNTHESIS. The iTunes ref says iTunes, not iTunes and other digital retailers.
  • "She doesn't fit, this can be interpreted from the lines: "Like who's that chick that rockin' kicks, She gotta be from outta town." Deleted as original research, which is a big no no.
  • "she also became the youngest person to lead the chart." That is impressive, but it isn't sourced. Not only is unsourced material bad in general, this particular comment is about Miley herself, therefore violating both original research guidelines and WP:BLP (even though it isn't contentious, unverfiable material about BLPs should always be deleted). In addition, I couldn't find a source to back it up myself.
  • Similarly, "...becoming the youngest artist to do so" was deleted from the article lead.

I hope that explains everything. Feel free to comment! Liquidluck (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Great points and thank you for evaluating the article. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help liquidluck! 70.108.130.180 (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Change of lyrics

In The Today Show performance, Miley Cyrus changed the second verse to "And a Michael song was on" again and in the Teen Choice Awards this also occurred. I think that since that happened twice and is probable to happen on her upcoming tour, then this might be notable enough for a sentence in the article. Before it was added, but since it was a "once-in-a-lifetime" thing, it was removed. Please respond and share your opinion. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just bc it has happened 2x it is NOT probable that it is a permanent lyric change. Just wait for the tour. 70.108.130.180 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to do so; I have not added the statement back. However, someone else did. I will remove it and wait to see if this is included on the tour. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More edits/deletes

Since there is currently an edit-war type going on in this article, I'm explaining each edit I made here. I hope everything is fine, but if anyone would like to make a change please either discuss it first or at least comment here afterward, so that we can work toward ending the conflict.

Lead

  • deleted [citation needed]s. Per WP:Lead Section#Citations, leads do not require citations unless the information is controversial/contentious. There is no controversy that Party in the USA became "Cyrus' best charting single in the U.S. yet, her first number one position on Hot Digital Songs and Hollywood Records' fastest selling song." , since these are facts. It also isn't contentious, it is admirable. An example of a heavily-edited, controversial sentence that does not have a citation is the lead in 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia, which says "In May and June 2009, allegedly racially motivated attacks against Indian international students and a perceived poor response by the police sparked protests in Australia." It goes out of its way to be neutral, but doesn't cite anything.
  • deleted "...due to Cyrus' use of a stripper pole. Others defended Cyrus, noting that she won six awards that evening." In my opinion, it is enough to say the dance was controversial. Why is discussed later in the article, Defense certainly doesn't need to be in the lead- it is a rebuttal and a detail. Also, stripper pole is a weasel word- some people say it was not a stripper pole, others say it was. Call it a pole, nothing more.

Content

  • Re-added EW review with a citation- it was probably be deleted because it did not have one.
  • Deleted New York Post "argues"; they aren't arguing with anyone. Replaced with

"considers it up-tempo"

  • I'll go into the live performances section later- I'm a little tired.

Overall

  • references go on the outside of punctuation per WP:REFPUN. Although we can put the punctuation on the inside, it is more common to afterward, and the article has evolved using refs afterward. I don't see a reason or consensus to change it, so I changed it back. It's weird, I know, because MLA says references go on the inside. Ah well.

I hope that explains everything! Leave me a talk page message or comment here if there are problems. Liquidluck (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think that the article is perfectly neutral, it pays as much attention to negative reviews about pole dancing an positives. I might be a fan, but the article never says that "it is the best song ever" or that "Miley Cyrus is the best." It describes the critical/commercial success of the song and anything that was said about the 2009 Teen Choice Awards performance. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article isnt neutral.

1) The lead says
" performance at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards was met with some controversy "
and I feel some should be removed as some makes it sound like it was just a few. It wasn't just a few. Many had issues w the pole dance, so it wasn't just some controversy.

 Done ipodnano took care of it. Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

2) The use of "dance pole". The press called it 'stripper pole' but Miey fans keep censoring it. If it was just a dance pole there wouldn't have been controversy.

✗ Not done I assume you've read my reply below, but as a summary stripper is a weasel word with automatic negative connotations. Pole dancing is actually accepted as excercise for all ages now, so it violates neutrality. Anyway, dance pole redirects to pole dancing anyway- if someone didn't know what a dance pole is, they click the link and find out.

3)The lead calls it critical. Source this. Who said it is a critical success? Some critics like it some don't. If this must be included don't have it in the lead as it make the article sound like its written by a Disney handler. Qualify or don't include it at all.

✗ Not done All we have are positive reviews- even those who condemned the dance said the song was good. We can't say there was negative reviews if there weren't any. If you can find one though, you are welcome to change it. Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

4)The lead calls it a commercial success. Per who? The industry standard for success is what? B/c songs are bought via downloads, songs chart high. But that doesn't automatically mean success. Quantify or don't include it at all.

 Done Ipod changed it to say it was a success "for Cyrus". Good catch and reasoning! Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

5) In Live performance section. "...Cyrus stepped onto an ice cream pushcart while dancing on and holding on to what appeared to be a dance pole(interpreted to be used for balance) for approximately 40 seconds." This needs to be rewritten.

a)It didn't 'appear to be', it was indeed a pole. ONE reviewer opined that the pole was for balance, but others disagree.
 Done. Took out appeared to be, said some said this and others said this, plain and simple. Two links to pole dancing in the others said this part, so pretty clear there. Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
b)If it was for balance why Miley dancing on it?
This is just a comment Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
c) 40 seconds, This being here makes it seem like Miley dancing on it was brief so it doesnt matter, but it does. She is a teen w young fans that are girls. What she does it imitated. Girls dancing on poles no matter how brief is unacceptable thus that is why their is controversy.
✗ Not done Its a sourced fact and just background info. Should be kept.

6) Chelsea Handler is no fan of Cyrus. She did sarcastically say she thought the performance was awesome. If you watched the rest of the ep where she did round table you would know that. If you watch her shows when she discussed Miley's pics in Vogue, Miley's phone pics leaking, & various other Miley incidents you'd know she did not mean this positively. It was sarcasm.
70.108.104.200 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done took the whole section out. A commedienne isn't a real critic anyway- its like quoting Donald Trump on health care- he has an opinion, but not an expert one.
O.K., the some was merely a mistake and I had no idea it seemed as such. Then, the term dance pole is used because that is the CORRECT term for a "stripper pole." Critical and commercial success are sourced, all of the critics reviews say positive things about it so... and if charting high, becoming her best charting song, and Hollywood Records fastest selling song doesn't make it a success than what does?? Look at GA articles like Just Dance, it says the song had commercial and critical success. And one of the things that are vital towards that nomination is neutrality. In the live performances it "appeared to be a dance pole" because some thought otherwise. To some it was a dance pole and to others it as just a pole for balanced, the 40 seconds are sourced. And if you look at the video she wasn't massively dancing on it, that is why some said it might just be for balance. And finally, Chelsea Handler in fact is no fan of her. I watch her show repeatedly and HAVE seen her sarcasm towards Cyrus, but here (per the video) she says she is now a fan of her. If she wouldn't have liked it she would have said something like "that is not sexual, who said pole dancing was sexual?" Well, I don't know about that one, but certainly the others are not favoring or sanitizing anything. I'll remove the "some controversy" thing and now we have five other points to take care of. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have some other points to make. You said that it was in fact a dance pole. It was not in fact a dance pole. Neither Cyrus or a representative of her's said that it was a dance pole. In fact, they said nothing about that specific part. Another thing, there is NO source saying that Handler was being sarcastic. To me she did not sound as such and I have watched Chelsea Lately many times, even when she pokes fun at her or the Jonas Brothers. And it is not that I am a fan. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Comments from Liquidluck (talk) Thanks for your comments, 70.x! I'll adress them point by point.

1. This is very valid- some denotes "not much", which isn't true. It should be removed- in fact, in my opinion it should just say "Cyrus performed the song live at several venues, including a controversial performance at the 2009 Teen Choice Awards".

2. I changed this per WP:WEASEL- please read that guideline. The word "stripper" has automatic negative connotations. I agree with saying "percieved by some to be a" dance pole, stripper pole, whatever. See the lead sentence in 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia- it isn't featured or good, but it is heavily edited. Although a Time article in the external links calls the attacks deliberate hate crimes, on Wikipedia it is called "perceived" and "alleged". Another way around would be to cite a specific, highly reputable source's reporter. For example, "...dancing on a pole, which New York Times reporter Example Smith called a "stripper pole"."

A controversy isn't a fact, it is a dispute between two or more opposing sides. Some say it was a stripper pole, some say it was just for balance. Wikipedia runs by consensus, so even if one reporter against 50 says it was for balance, we have to say it was a controversial performance, not a pole dance.

3. & 4. All we have is positive reviews. If anyone finds a poor review, we can add that and say it was not a critical success, but I just ran a google search (though not a very thorough one) and couldn't find any reputable. It did have commercial success- best seller for HR records, 2nd highest debut by a female solo artist, tied for highest debut of 2009. We could say that it was "a commercial success for Cyrus", which would hint that it wouldn't be considered the same by another singer.

5.a) and b) see #2. I would call it a pole dance too, and it was bad enough to generate this controversy and for Fox to decide to cut away from the act during the bit in which she went down on the pole. But I'm not a reputable source.

c) 40 seconds is a fact, so it should be kept. There are many more negative than positive reviews of the performance, so I don't think we run the risk of making it seem positive.

6. Fair enough. It doesn't seem sarcastic to me, but I haven't seen the entire episode nor have I watched her show often. Lets take it out until a source clearly interprets it for us. Liquidluck (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a commercial success, but not just for Cyrus for any artist. Having their record company's fastest selling single is quite something. The critical reception would still be a success even there was an extremely negative review out there, because it would be the majority saying positive things about the song. As to the whole "stripper pole" or "dance pole" situation, the popper term is not "stripper pole" even though the references say so. I agree on stating the majority of people gave Cyrus negative comments on the 2009 Teen Choice Awards because it is true. However, it is not that big of a bother, in the lead/live performances we can just say that most people said it was too sexual and inappropriate for a teenager. Overall, the article is not completely biased, at least not enough for the template. It only needs to have minor adjustments. I will take care of them and hopefully that will satisfy all of us. After the edits are done, please keep discussing to see if there are still any problems. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@ ipodNano's comment from 22:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) (FYI ,these #s follow your sentences not my original #s)
1) What was merely a mistake?
2) You may bold and capitalise all you want. It dont give you greater credence. Per who or what is the correct term dance pole? That it was a stripper pole that role model for young girls & Disney star Miley danced on is why there is controversy. If it want a stripper pole why did the camera cut away from her to the audience?
3) It is sourced in the body which is why I have no problem w it being in the body. In the lead it is superfluous. Already this article is too(for lack of better words) kiss *ss.
3b) All critics DONT say postive things, you only included the postive reviews bc you're a fan/stan.
3c) Those 2 things do matter, so say "The song was a success debuting @ #2 w sales". It is the fastest selling Hollywood Records song, but Hollywood Rec is a small Disney record label/company. Afterall, a success for them is sales of 50K copies [for example Demi Lovato got #1 on the general Billboard 200 chart with whole entire US sales in 1 wk of just 108k, but for real singers this is just ok].
That is why I say quantify it. Compared to labels like Verve, Stax,Capitol,SonyBMG,Arista,Jive,Hidden Beach, etc; she did moderately well.
Furthermore, commercial success is different now. B/c songs are bought via downloads, songs chart high. But that doesn't automatically mean success. Selling 500k & definitely selling 1mill d/l or opies is a success. Selling 160k is a great start. So state that: Miley's song was downloaded 160,000 leading to it successfully charting @ #1. But what if she never reaches 500k sales? Then you have prematurly called this song a success. For these reasons have the stat in the body, not the lead.
3d) "And one of the things that are vital towards that nomination is neutrality" I dont know what u mean by this.
4) Thought otherwise by who? The controversy is bc it is a stripper pole.
4b) "used for balance" is 1 person's opinion of it. For other reviewers Miley was dancing on it in a sexual nature, a suggestive nature. If it was for balance why Miley dancing on it? If it was for balance why was she twirling around it ? She was doing sexually suggestive dances/moves w the pole.
If u want 2 include "interpreted as used for balance", you must include a contrary interpretation of it 2 keep it POV.
4c) She did dance massively on it, Fox cut the camera away from it bc they knew it wasnt good. Look @ fan vids of her performance.
5) In fact? Ive always know Chelsea was no fan of Miley's. This is why I know she was not praising the stripper pole dance performance Miley did. & again with the bold. Bolding doesnt make me belive all of a sudden change my mind.
5b) Chelsea said she is now a fan sarcastically. If you truly watch her show repeatedly you 've seen how she comments on Miley. You'd know that comment was in jess, it was sarcasm, it was not a compliment. It was no compliment.
5c) QUOTE:"If she wouldn't have liked it she would have said something like "that is not sexual, who said pole dancing was sexual?"
What you wrote makes no sense to me. Chelsea is a comedian so she says things to get laugh. I dont see her saying what you wrote as it doesnt even make sense, nor is funny.
If you truly watch Chelsea as you claim you do, you know she uses sarcasm alot, and says many things in jess. She has vocalised her disgust and annoyance w Miley many times before 9Aug, did so on the rest of the episode we're talking about, and has done so and many times since that opening skit.70.108.104.200 (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) updated 70.108.104.200 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The comments you made make absolutely no sense. To begin, you said I only included positive reviews, well that is a lie. You cannot assume that just because I am a fan, I only included positive ones. That is a pure accusation and if there were negative reviews out there I would added them (look at The Climb (song), the critics section I made it). So, if you find a reliable critical review on the song that is negative, that would prove your point. You said some like it and some don't, so FIND ONE THAT DOESN'T because what you said is just a speculation. No negative reviews are in place. It was a mistake, don't take everything offensively (it was removed, so case closed on that one). O.K., it is a success for her, but to most recording artists it would be also, with the exception of people like Whitney Houston, Madonna, etc. Whatever, it is a success for her (let's just say that). STRIPPER POLE IS NOT A PROPER TERM, per who? Well, per Wikipedia... why isn't the page called "Stripper dancing." It is ultimately the same thing, so I don't understand your concern. You seem to not like her or her music, the only reason why you are editing seems to be to draw negative points of view to the article. I believe, that you just want the article to say negative things. You don't want the article to say it had critical/commercial success, even though it DID. As I said before, look at the GA Just Dance; they say it had commercial success/critical and it is GA (look at the GA review, it says the article is NEUTRAL, and it is written in the same format). The article IS NEUTRAL, it pays as much attention to positive and negative things about the song. Read WP:YESPOV, it does NOT violate anything. All of the points you have made do not significantly alter the neutrality of the article. Next, it was interpreted by some just for balance, so that should be included and is sourced. And finally, about the whole Chelsea Handler opinion. It is not that I was trying to be funny, but her sarcastic approach always uses an oxymoron. And in the video Handler says she has always made fun of her, but now she is "officially a fan." -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is fine. Remove the neutrality tag. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done Per WP:YESPOV and 3/4 editors the article is neutral. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have retagged the article. What 3 of 4 editors say the article is neutral? Those that have posted comments are you, liquid, and I. Flyer didnt elaborate, so I didnt count s/he. I'll respond to the other points when I have time. Unlike you Miley stan/Stan, I have a life.I ve not made edits and you repeatedly do. I thought we are supposed to agree here before edits are made? Liquid you still contributing? unsigned comment added by 70.108.61.231 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV discussion continued

Re IP 70.x above: Yes, I'm still here if need be. But I took out the npov tag, since I think all your original 6 points were addressed, and all but two were completed. I left a quick note beneath each of the points just in case. If there are any more problems, lets keep talking beneath here- the upper section is getting confusing. I'd like to remind the room at large to please be civil while interacting with other editors, and that Wikipedia is consensus driven. Liquidluck (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

IP, I am not see what in the current state of this article is non-neutral. Is it that you mainly want the part about Chelsea Handler to state that she was being sarcastic? I am going to have to see that moment on her show for myself. You say that it was sarcastic, while Ipodnano05 says that she was being serious. I mean, is it really that difficult to tell whether or not she was being sarcastic? Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind about the Chelsea Handler part; I see that has been removed. Thus, now I am wondering even more what objections you might have about this article, IP. Liquidluck solved your main concerns before removing the neutrality tag. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to know what these two points are in order to be able to comment. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The 6 points I mentioned are those in ip 70.x's first comment- click here. I put  Done and ✗ Not done ticks beneath each to say whether they were done or not. The points that 70.x mentioned that were not taken care of are removing the "40 seconds", "dance pole", and "critical acclaim". Hope that helps! Liquidluck (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
O.K. I agree with all of those, no argument. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The release date of Party in the U.S.A. in the United Kingdom

Please stop changing the release date of Party In The U.S.A. in the United Kingdom. It was supposed to be released on 12th October but pushed back to 26th October confirmed by Miley Cyrus' official website and other reliable sources. I know Amazon (UK) says it will be released 12th October but it will be pushed back 26th as other music retailers have the song due for an official release on 26th October. Calvin Nelson4 (CalvinNelson4) 22:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions! If you can source that the single will be released on the 26, that info should definitely be changed. Please add a link to your source in the article. If you are not comfortable or unsure of how to add sources, please simply leave the link here and someone else will add it. Liquidluck (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This link seems to support the 26th release date Jozsefs (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN Usage

Recently a video came out of a group of children singing a song supporting President Obama's health care initiative at the studio of CNN to this song's tune. Should it be added (likely under a separate section)? (Link: Real Clear Politics link) WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The notablity of the video might be disuputed, but I think it is interesting enough to note briefly in the "reception" section, if we retitled it "reception" instead of "critical reception". Unless the video goes viral and becomes popular, I don't think it needs its own section. I suppose we could make a "parody" section, and add info about the gay men video, but not unless there are more notable ones created. Liquidluck (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stripper pole was actually umbrella pole

This is significant- CNN reports that the "some members of the press have been harsh critics of provocative photos and, more recently, a performance at the "Teen Choice Awards" that involved what they called a "stripper pole." (Said pole was really an umbrella pole on top of an ice cream cart that she braced herself against for the duration of two hip shakes.)"'I've never been that person to fake it,' says Miley Cyrus I'll come back and add it sometime, but if anyone else wants to do it sooner, be my guest =]. Liquidluck (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart performance

Why aren't you guys including other countries (such as the Philippines MYX Hit Chart despite the reference added? --Truflip99 (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the MYX Hit Chart is a single-network chart that is partially based on viewer voting. It's listed on WP:BADCHARTS, so it isn't supposed to be included in any Wikipedia articles.—Kww(talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Worst song ever"

Subjective comments posted to Wikipedia articles like this are why Wikipedia loses credibility: " "Party In The U.S.A." (or "Party In The USA" in the UK) is the worst song ever. The song was written by Lukasz Gottwald, Claude Kelly and Jessica Cornish, and produced by Gottwald. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.73.138 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. The edit was done about two hours ago. I undid the edit and left the editor a notice on his/her talk page. Please feel free to delete any subjective comments or inaccurate information you see on Wikipedia yourself. Alternatively, leave a note on the talk page like you did here. Thanks again! Liqudluck✽talk 21:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Selena Gomez, "teen queen"

I'm a somewhat inexperienced editor here, doing mostly grammatical edits and vandalism reversion thus far, so I am hoping someone more experienced than I can handle this issue. There are a couple of sentences that are being moved around that are obviously vandalism. I would revert the edits, but there have been too many since a "clean" version existed. Furthermore, I would just delete the sentences, but there is a cite at the end of the last sentence that I don't know what to do with as it could very well be legitimate and I don't want to mess anything up. Anyway, the sentences are as follows: "The video was to show a new Cyrus to break out of trying to be Selena Gomez. But, Why? Maybe because you where no longer in the spot light. No longer "Teen Queen."[36]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanc33 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done, definitely vandalism. I hope it hasn't been there too long. Good catch, and thanks! Liquidluck✽talk 05:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Auto Tune

Several times I've included the fact she uses Auto Tune and several times it's been deleted. Any particular reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayward (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to include a reference to a reliable source stating that autotune is used, and that it is used to correct vocal mistakes. References are needed for all sentences, but since "to correct vocal mistakes" can be considered an insult and this article concerns a living person, references are especially important for this particular sentence (and other potentially contentious info). liquidluck✽talk 14:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"Auto-Tune uses a phase vocoder to correct pitch in vocal and instrumental performance" from the Auto Tune article. Also, anyone who has heard Auto Tune can hear it on Party in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.165.14.58 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. If you can find a reliable source stating it, it can (and should!) be added- but until then, please leave it out. liquidluck✽talk 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto-tune is not used to correct pitch in vocal and instrument performance. It is also used in order to produce the prominent altered vocal effect, like on this song. It has nothing to do with vocal skills, like on Cher's "Believe". While in fact auto-tune is prominently present, a reliable source for that needs to be given. If you find one, then you are welcome to add it here. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We are verging on forum commentary here, but I'm afraid that's just incorrect. Auto-Tune can be used like a sledge-hammer and produce a "prominent altered vocal effect", or it can be used subtly to correct a singer that's a few cents flat or sharp. In the hands of a skilled recording engineer, it can be virtually indetectable.—Kww(talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I notice there isn't one line of criticism about Cyrus or this song and I assume it's because the article in controlled by fans of hers. I won't bother trying to fight this but I think adding the fact that Auto Tune is used and what it does will be valuable because I'm sure a lot of people listen to the song and wonder why her voice sounds so unnatural. Unnatural not being an insult but simply a statement of fact. --Shayward (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
There are not supposed to any lines of criticism. It's supposed to be neutral. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject

I am proposing a WikiProject for all matter relating to Miley Cyrus. There are many articles for topics of her music and acting career so having an organized system with proper editors and collaborators would be great. To sign up or support the project please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Miley Cyrus. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Party in the U.S.A./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I'll keep editing this page as I go along. Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Writing style

  • "The song was not originally meant for Cyrus to perform..." -- Do we know who it was intended for? Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, no. I scavenged the Internet for some time and could not find it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine. Thanks for checking. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Composition section: "Swift's vocals span two octaves..." -- surely you meant to say "Cyrus"?
 Done
  • The first paragraph of the Composition section needs to be reorganized. Currently the order in which the info is presented is: time - genre - time - key - genre - key - instrumentation - vocals. Granted, my previous statement may have oversimplified the flow of that particular paragraph, but I do think the ideas need to be reorganized.
  • How? Right it's time - genre - arrangement details (interrupted by voice in a respective part) - instrumentation. I moved the belter chorus information toward voice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe the problem is that the paragraph seems too choppy??? If we can't resolve this issue, then I'll just ask for a second opinion when I finish my review. Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "According to Vicki Lutas of BBC, "Party in the U.S.A." has belter refrains." -- Why do you have to state the source in the text when you already have an inline citation? I suggest that you remove that phrase and join the sentence to the previous one (on instrumentation).
  • It's not the same source though. I moved toward info about voice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • But do your really have to mention Bill Lamb and Vicki Lutas? I recommend the following: "Cyrus' vocals display an undertone of twang[13] and features belter refrains.[14]" Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • In the Critical reception section, "Erik Ensrst of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said the ___ was "ridiculously catchy"." -- I'll let you add the missing word.
  •  Done
  • "Mikael Wood of Entertainment Weekly was decided..." -- remove "was. Edge3 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Second paragraph of the Music video section: at first, you have some really good transitions between different scenes of the music video. Words such as "commences", "later", "make their way", and "then" indicate a chronology. However, when you get to the sentence "She, standing on a swing...", there is no such transition, and the lack thereof makes the statement seem choppy.
  • I see your point but the word "appears" indicates a chronology, I think :) -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "appears" is a verb, not a transition. ;) If there's no transition, then the reader might think that the jungle gym is shown in the scene with the flag mentioned right before. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Added the opening phrase "Later, [...]." So, I think it's  Done. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The same sentence ("She, standing on a swing...") needs to be recast. Personally I like to avoid commas when possible, because the use of too many phrases and clauses can confuse the reader sometimes. In this case, you're talking about the swing first before you mention the larger scene (the jungle gym). I would mention the jungle gym first, and (if you want to) mention that Miley is in the center afterwards. Edge3 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • But she is in the swing before the jungle gym as a whole. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah! Maybe I should take a look at this video. On a side note, I do think you should attribute the video as a source; the entire paragraph currently has no inline citation. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I used to add the video as a source but then I was noted it was almost useless. It's like adding a source for the plot of a film or novel. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, that makes sense. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Child psychologist Wendi Fischer told Newsday Cyrus was communicating to her fans that it is acceptable to pole dance, which, according to her, was unacceptable." -- When you say "according to her", are you referring to Fisher or Cyrus? The pronoun's antecedent is ambiguous.
  •  Done
  • In the Cover versions section, remove the "2010" from the parentheses and replace it with "released in 2010".
  •  Done
  • "In the episode, the characters perform the parody, themed about the city which the series is set in, Scranton, Pennsylvania, for the coordinating director of Sabre. Due their boss mispronouncing the word "Sabre", it ended without a rhyme." -- This is worded awkwardly and needs to be recast. Edge3 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...for the coordinating director of Sabre." -- This needs to be moved to the previous sentence, before "using an acoustic guitar". Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Have you seen any negative reviews of this song? I'm just wondering because the Critical reception section summarizes mostly positive reviews. Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks! Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for trying. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the end of Part 1 of my review. Part 2 comes tomorrow or later this week, when I check all of the sources. :) Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

  • "The song was chosen as the lead single from The Time of Our Lives, as Cyrus thought personnel were 'picking up on it'" -- While it's true that the song is the lead single for the album, the source interview does not indicate that the song became the lead single because Miley thought personnel were "picking up on it". Both facts presented can be independently verified, but the conclusion you draw from synthesizing them cannot. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Edge3 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In in the interview, she said that it was originally just for the clothing line but when people starting picking up on it, it became what it was (a single). -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The source does not explicitly state that Cyrus made it the lead single because of the reception it got from the other personnel. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • She said that at first it was originated for the clothing line, but when people starting picking up on it... (she doesn't continue the sentence). Since she had already discussed including it in the EP, the next step for the song would be a single release. So if it was first only for the clothing line, then, when people starting picking up on it, she made it into something that wasn't just for the clothing line (a single). It's not 100% explicit, but it's explicit to a sense where it's common sense. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Cyrus was pleased with the song and selected it partially due to a need of tracks for The Time of Our Lives." -- Not supported by the source. Edge3 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the source, Cyrus is quoted saying "It was just something that I wanted to do and I needed some songs and it turned out for the best." I believe that supports it very much. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the intended meaning is vague. In the same paragraph, Cyrus is discussing the clothing line. Therefore, it is not clear whether she selected the single simply because she needed more songs for the album. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • She says that she needed tracks. That suffices. What was discussed prior in the paragraph has nothing to do. It's not simply because of that. In the article, it says the word "partially". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you even need that sentence? It doesn't really say much. I mean, it says two things: a) She likes the song. So what? It's kind of expected for an artist to like their own work. b) She needed tracks for the album. Don't all albums need tracks? I say cut it out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Brackets are showing up on reference 9, so it needs to be reformatted. Edge3 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That brackets are part of the source's title and do not interfere with the format. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The same thing happens in ref 19. Basically I'm recommending that you remove the brackets and the word "allmusic" from the "title" parameter. "allmusic" is mentioned in the "work" parameter anyway. Edge3 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The brackets are part of the title but I can remove the allmusic mention. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fine. No big deal anyway... Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The song arranges R&B and pop music elements" -- not supported by the source.
  • Yes it is. "He's colliding R&B with pop in the most aggressive way imaginable. You can hear it in Ke's frayed post-Uffie facsimiles, in Miley Cyrus' talk-sing phrasing and Jay-Z-referencing on 'Party In the U.S.A.'", the source says. It's toward the end. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed it is! Apologies for the misunderstanding. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...contains small, loose influences from reggae" -- The source says only "loose, reggae-powered pop tune". The adjective "loose" describes the song, not reggae. Edge3 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • "The song's instrumentation consists of a clash between feathery jazz guitar chords and a booming synth bassline serving as hook." -- copied almost verbatim from the source. Also, "consists" should be changed to "includes", because we already know that there are drums as well. Edge3 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • You still haven't fixed the copyright issue. Try to use your own words to express these ideas. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh. I have no idea how so I added quotations around it. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Fortunately for Cyrus, these songs flee your brain cells..." -- What songs? Please be specific, perhaps by saying "the other songs in the album" or something similar. Edge3 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Put "The other songs...", as Party in the USA is also a song in that album.

Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's needed. Please re-read the quote. It says that "these songs are [...], which means 'Party in the U.S.A.' [...]." -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not just chop it down to "Jaime Gill of Yahoo! Music called it a "breezily brilliant hit"."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "He predicted it would broaden her fan base and help to slowly become an adult pop singer." -- Change to "...fan base as she slowly becomes an adult pop singer" to better reflect the source. Edge3 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • How do we know that Party in the USA is the lead single, if it doesn't come up first in the track listing? Do you have a source that explicitly says that this song is the lead single? This one says that "Kicking and Screaming" is the "lead track". Edge3 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A lead single, if you read the article, is the first single released from an album, not the opening track. Therefore, "Party in the U.S.A." is the lead single from The Time of Our Lives. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • And how do we know that this song was the first to be released? Note that I'm not doubting your knowledge of the topic; I'm just stressing the importance of verifiability. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Because no other song as released before. There is no note or source that indicates a release of another song before this. It was released first. I'm sure it stated somewhere, but I don't think a source is needed because it's just a little common sense because of what was stated previously. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's fine. WP:GACR doesn't require a source for this particular statement anyway.
  • "...Cyrus' bouncy attempt at Urban music" -- the source says "hip hop", not Urban Edge3 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it true that Urban contemporary music refers to a variety of different music genres, one of which is hip hop? Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally I prefer "hip hop", since that's what the source said. Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it matters either way. Hip-hop is a subset of urban. Either way works. It's not worth arguing about or a reason to hold up a GA review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the "After listening to the track..." sentence, I don't think changing the quote is a good idea; it obscures the original meaning of the source. I recommend: "Upon listening to the track, Lutas feels that 'suddenly you think someone else is in the room with you and you've got all the ingredients for, well, a huge party contained in one little song'." (Unless, of course, you have something else in mind.) Edge3 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done

Unfortunately, I've been rather busy over the past few days, so I apologize for conducting such a slow review. I should be posting more comments soon. Edge3 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the work that you have put into this article, but I'm afraid that our personally held beliefs on several issues, including the semantics of various sources, are so resolute such that our disagreements cannot be resolved on this particular nomination. I'm failing it so that you may seek the advice of another reviewer on WP:GAN or the entire GA community on WP:GAR. Best of luck on your next step! Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Composition

Under the above sub-heading, it says the song is in the key of F major, as sourced from sheet music. After listening to the 30sec sample, I'd have to disagree and say that the song is in fact in the key of F# major. Would this be considered 'original research' ? 210.7.1.58 (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


Butterfly Fly Away

Isn't Miley making reference to this in the song when she says "Butterflies, Fly away"? Cause that's what I thought of when I heard it. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 12:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Party in the U.S.A./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Candyo32 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi IpodNano, I will be reviewing "Party in the U.S.A." against the GA criteria for you! Candyo32 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Issues

  • The prose seems fine to me. Just a few minor issues, and it should be on its way!

Background

  • No comma after the but in the first sentence.

Chart performance

  • Why is the CRIA listed as digital downloads for certs, while RIAA is shipments?
  • Because the CRIA certification for digital downloads has a different requirement than the physical singles certification. It's different and the source says "Party in the U.S.A." was awarded 4 times digital platinum. While in the RIAA, they are the same. It's a million sales for platinum -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Music video

  • Non free images need to be 300x300
  • O.K. But since it is two images in one, I think it should be acceptable for the image to be the size it currently is. fi you disagree I'll lower the resolution. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Lowered a bit. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I'm still weary of it since all together it is still one non-free image, even though it is two stills. Candyo32 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't its new size suitable? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 Done

Cover versions

  • Not a big deal, but are there anymore more cover versions that could be noted other than just those two. Just wondering to see if the section could be fleshed out more.

Miscellaneous

  • Could there be a release history and/or credits and personnel section?
  • Release histories is not something I think should be added to pages. I would add a personnel section but no other Miley Cyrus song articles have it so it would not be in cohesion. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I would recommend it, I won't push it since it isn't listed in WP:SONGS. 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Refs 26 is dead.
  •  Done
  • Composition - "In the verses, she details occurrences, like peers questioning her attire,[15] in Hollywood that cause for her to feel homesick and intimidated." Weird wording between "attire" and "in Hollywood" doesn't make sense.
  • The attire information is supposed to be an example for the occurrences. Therefore, it is put in commas. I replaced "like" with "such as". Maybe that helps distinguish the relationship between "attire" and "in Hollywood"? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Much better. Candyo32 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There are several spots in the chart performance where a comma needs to be placed in between two different ideas. (ex. the sentence about charting on the Pop Songs and Adult Pop Songs).
  •  Done
  • In music video, "Video conception sprang forward with the idea to resemble the scene in Grease where John Travolta sings "Sandy": in the scene, Travolta exits from a car and walks over to a jungle gym, where he sits on a swing and performs the song as projections are displayed in the background" --> Period after "Sandy", begin new sentence.
  •  Done
"The video won the MuchMusic Video Award for Best International Artist Video and was nominated for the MuchMusic Video Award for People's Choice: Favourite International Video, but lost to Adam Lambert's video for "Whataya Want From Me" at the 2010 MuchMusic Video Awards.[48]." This is a bit awkwardly organized. Mention something like "At the 2010 MuchMusic Awards, the song won the video for...........,but lost out in the category of.....to Adam Lambert's....."
  •  Done
  • In live performances, "Child psychologist Wendi Fischer told Newsday Cyrus was communicating..." Comma or colon after Newsday.
  •  Done
  • Track listing need sources.
  •  Done
  • Ref 77 is messed up.
  •  Done

Begin to work on these fixes, and I'll post some more comments later. Candyo32 12:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

remove

i removed this because the reference doesnt back it up and i dont think its true:

Cyrus' vocals display an undertone of twang[1] and features belter refrains.[2]

Bouket (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

F major or F# major?

The article says F major, but it sounds like F# major to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.72.74 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

R&B

This is not an R&B song, it just isn't. I have nothing against the song, I do not particularly like the song. But, Etta James and Areteha Franklin are R&B singers. There are just no R&B careristics to this song. So can we just get rid of that, I treid but it was reverted. It's dance-pop with a hint of country. 24.77.173.236 (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Party in the U.S.A.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Party in the U.S.A.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about White House petition to make Party in the USA the national anthem

There is an ongoing Request for Comment about whether to include a petition started by Elijah Daniel in the article about him, which was a White House petition to make Party in the U.S.A. the national anthem.

You may comment, if you wish, at: Talk:Elijah_Daniel#RfC_about_White_House_petition_to_make_Party_in_the_USA_the_national_anthem.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Leak

Yes, the song was leaked before its release. That's common, trivially so.

Yes, you have a source. That's important, but doesn't show the information isn't trivial. From a reliable source, I can state what color of shoes Cyrus was wearing on some random date, what she ate for lunch or who paid for lunch. All of those would be verifiable, but trivial.

Most leaks are trivial. This leak was of no particular consequence. Please see WP:LEAK. - SummerPhDv2.0 21:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copyrighted lyrics of the song. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lamb, Bill. "Miley Cyrus – "Party in the USA"". About.com. The New York Times. Retrieved August 30, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
  2. ^ Lutas, Vicki. "Miley Cyrus – Party in the U.S.A." BBC Online. BBC. Retrieved August 28, 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Party_in_the_U.S.A./Archive_1&oldid=1159178390"