Talk:Vogue (Madonna song)/GA1

GA nomination successful following sufficient improvements

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.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Expect my initial comments to be posted within a few days. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My review will begin with the infobox and lead section.

Infobox

Can a specific timeframe (maybe 1989 or 1990) be provided for recording?

No timeframe was ever mentioned as far as I know. Alex ^{reach me!} 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the "24-track basement studio at West 56th Street" (what I found from a glance at the body) has a name, then I'd add it here

No recording studio was ever mentioned on any release of the song either. Alex ^{reach me!} 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure both Sire and Warner should be listed here, especially when the former doesn't get mentioned outside of this or the lead plus is part of the latter.

This release of the single mentions both labels, so I added Warner Bros. in the lead Alex ^{reach me!} 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

You don't need to link commonly recognized terms like "lead single", "music critics", "black-and-white", "music video", or "popular culture" per WP:OVERLINK
"as one of Madonna's most iconic" feels like puffery/fancruft language, just say that critics regard this as "one of Madonna's best" or "one of Madonna's greatest" videos instead.
Unless you can give a precise count of places this charted at number one (and I'm hesitant to take the "over 30" claim at face value when only counting 13), let's just name the nations it went to the top within. You can also cut the non-number ones it reached the top 10 of.
Since "modern" is another way of saying "present" or "current", can't you just say "futuristic" instead of "postmodern"?

More will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

"hits" from "16 consecutive top-five hits" is too informal
Contrary to what the text implies with "However" and "only managed to reach number 20", that's not by any means a low number even when not as big as prior achievements, plus I don't see "Oh Father" anywhere in the attributed ref.
While I did find "voguing" and The Sound Factory here, it doesn't discuss a "gay scene" or anything underground
Per WP:REPCITE, you don't need to use the same citation more than once within a paragraph, so ref#2 can safely be removed from the "already liked it the way it was" bit when already covered under the use at the end of "should be released as a single"
"'Vogue' was included on the album soundtrack I'm Breathless, which contained songs from and inspired by the Disney film Dick Tracy, which Madonna starred as Breathless Mahoney; the singer had been approached by director and co-star Warren Beatty to write a song that would fit her character's point of view, as she was 'obsessed with speakeasies and movie stars and things like that', and the idea served as an inspiration for 'Vogue'"..... Talk about a mouthful! I definitely recommend splitting that overly long sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period. It might feel like nitpicking, but another thing I'll bring up is how Disney was never brought up within this for Dick Tracy.
Is it known why "Vogue" didn't get featured in the movie?

Not as far as I know Alex ^{reach me!} 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my previous comment on WP:OVERLINK regarding "lead single", which isn't mentioned here

I'll probably go through the rest of this section-by-section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and composition

Something weird is going on with File:VogueSample.ogg where one part read of the file page says it's 27 seconds long before you click to play yet changes to 26 later to match a prose file description. Not sure which total is correct, but I regardless don't see how the sample benefits the page per criterion#8 of WP:Non-free content criteria, so we can safely scrap the sample entirely.

I'm opposed to removing the sample, it doesn't fail any criteria and gives context to the instruments used Alex ^{reach me!} 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the revised caption, we now at least have better context for its inclusion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:REPCITE with the section's first paragraph; ref#16 (album liners) only needs to be placed at the end of "along with all tracks present on I'm Breathless".
I don't find anything on the track having dance influences within the attributed citations, but this outright calls it "one of the most memorable dance songs ever".
Nothing here mentioning salsa or soul at all, and I don't see Salsoul Orchestra either. Furthermore, the song title named in it simply says "Love Break".
"The song opens with Madonna asking the listener, 'What are you looking at' as a way to establish the visual nature of the song's lyrics." is uncomfortably close paraphrasing to what Jason Hanley uses, with the only difference being you have "song's" and he uses "song". Please rewrite this so it isn't presented as fully being your own words.
Using "vital and important" from "how vital and important a silly dance-floor ritual can be to its practitioners" is redundant. Just have "vital" or "important".
Add a hyphen to "namechecking"
"sampled a 0.23-second segment of horns from "Ooh I Love It (Love Break)" without permission"..... even with a piece from Los Angeles Times, you still haven't provided adequate support for a title beyond "Love Break"
"VMG said it attempted to give notice of copyright infringement twice before in July 2011 and again in February 2012" is another super-close paraphrasing case when the only difference from MTV's words is it has the present-tense "says" in contrast to your past-tense use of "said". You'll have to change this as well.

OK, I have to say it's not a good sign that one section alone has two cases of paraphrasing being quite close to original text and not properly attributing it as such. Luckily neither are cases of outright plagiarism, but they still need to be changed. Before going further into "Critical response", I boldly went ahead and fixed one heading to something more accurate as its use of "contemporary" was misleading. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Hi! I have addressed all of the issues mentioned up until now (I guess). Alex ^{reach me!} 14:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you did so, and I'll continue. Just unlink "futuristic" per WP:OVERLINK, and here is something you could add for "Vogue" being the first I'm Breathless single.

Critical response

Initial reviews

See my above comments on linking "music critics".
While there aren't any copyright violations with File:Madonna à Nice 26 (cropped).jpg and I see why you added this, it feels out of place here, and would be better off for "Live performances" (assuming you keep it).
Not sure "déjà vu" or "numero uno" should have italics
Maybe it's just because I lack a subscription, but I don't see how this is from The New York Times as opposed to Florida Today

This NYT review was published by Florida Today, I've added a clarification in the source Alex ^{reach me!} 11:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades and retrospective reviews

Why are awards lumped into the same subheading as these reviews? You'd probably be better off splitting it out.
The first sentence of this subsection is overly long, and I recommend splitting it by turning the semi-colon after " being nominated for 'Favorite Pop/Rock Single'" into a period.
To avoid WP:SYNTH, it would help to have a ref discussing overall favorable/mixed/unfavorable retrospective response like you do with initial response
Just one passing mention of the track here, which doesn't use "sleek" or "stylish" at all
You've misused a semi-colon after "the 'shoe-horned' and 'still-preposterous' song" when a period would work better, especially when the next word is in upper case.
Slant doesn't say "hugely influential"

I'll get to "Commercial performance" with my next batch of comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to remove the "retrospective reviews" bit as the reception is not much different from the reviews from 1990. Alex ^{reach me!} 12:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood me: I wasn't saying to scrap those reviews altogether, and in fact having them can help show how people continue to hold this in high regard years after its initial release. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

Even though this track came out long before streams started being counted towards certifications, I'm hesitant to have things like "shipments of ____ copies" as this section does for the US, Australia, and Canada. You'd be better off trying to implement specific sales figures for the song, whether physical, digital, or both as you do with the UK. Even the digital-only numbers for the US are preferable to basing sales on certification levels.

The certifications in these countries came before the digital era, so a change isn't needed Alex ^{reach me!} 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2010 the latest update for American digital sales of this? If so, then it'll suffice, though a hunch tells me something more recent may have come along when it's now been over a decade since that was given.

Yes as far as I know, unfortunately Alex ^{reach me!} 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vogue" got certified double platinum for Australia, not just single platinum
No mention of "Keep It Together" here, just "Vogue"
The section neglects to mention Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland despite reaching the top 10 in each of these. The absences for Japan, Portugal, or Sweden are especially glaring when "Vogue" topped their respective charts.

Do you want me to mention ALL of these countries? Alex ^{reach me!} 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At bare minimum I'd add the places it went number one, preferably with number twos as well. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's too informal to use "hit" the way you do with "Madonna's biggest hit at that time". I'd recommend using something else such as "biggest success" or "best-performing song" instead.
While definitely well-intentioned, I'm skeptical about using an August article to back up "best-selling single" for a calendar year when 1990 wasn't even close to finished at the time of publication as other songs could've potentially sold more over the remaining months.

I've added a mention to clarify it was up until August only Alex ^{reach me!} 11:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, not a bad section. Not sure how long "Music video" will take me to assess once I get to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS Sorry for the delay, guess I was enjoying my holidays too much :P. The new comments have been addressed! Alex ^{reach me!} 12:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music video

Background and development

File:David Fincher (2012) 3.jpg doesn't seem to have any copyright issues, just remove the italics from "pictured"
See my above comments on WP:OVERLINK
I hope you don't mind me making a slight change here where "Thakur" appeared to be a misspelling of "Shakur"; I didn't see any other way to repair those three HARVref errors (there's also others but I wasn't sure how to repair them). One of them was for this section.
More WP:REPCITE with the second paragraph; ref#92 only needs to be used at the end of "opportunity to choreograph the video".
"whittling them down within a matter of days and inviting them out to clubs to make sure they 'could deliver'" is taken word-for-word from ref#93 and presented as your own text, but at least you had some bits before that which thankfully were paraphrased. Try to rework this part as well.
I'd replace "iconography" from "leans on static iconography" with "imagery" or "symbols"

Synopsis

File:Voguem.jpeg has an appropriate FUR, which reminds me that I forgot to mention earlier how the same goes for File:Madonna, Vogue cover.png
It seems odd to have a citation attached to one sentence from the second paragraph while the rest is unreferenced. Any particular reason for this setup? Unlike movie, TV show, video game, and book plot sections, I couldn't find any policy or guideline on citing music video plot details, but feel free to point out any standards I may have missed.
- Apparently it's another case of "summaries don't need cites", but the parts regarding recreations of Horst's photography (something noted in the previous subsection) mention specific pictures and the cites - one of whom I added in my edit - back up that the video aimed for those.
"several" from "name-dropping several Hollywood actors" is an understatement (the lyrics mention even more than the ones you named earlier)
"conic bra" → "cone bra"

Reception and analysis

While it appears safe to declare File:Miss Monroe's negligee, by Juel Park 1952.jpg public domain, I'm not entirely convinced this inclusion is beneficial. Were the comparisons only made for similar hairstyles?
"different from her previous music videos"..... you'd be better off with unlike or in contrast to
The Backlot (ref#108) isn't loading in archived or unarchived form, so it sadly doesn't look usable
- Found a working link.
Link Slant Magazine
It's not clear whether Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern is giving a positive, mixed, or negative review from the text you've used. Same goes for Queer Tracks: Subversive Strategies in Rock and Pop Music.
Link Lucy O'Brien and use full name here when it's the first time this author gets mentioned
Too much quoted text from Guilty Pleasures: Feminist Camp from Mae West to Madonna, it feels like a WP:QUOTEFARM
You'll need something stronger than the dubious Rock On The Net for a "100 Greatest Videos Ever Made" ranking
I'd specify how "Vogue" ranked at #9 on VH1's "Best Music Videos of All Time" list
What does view count have to do with analyzing the video or whether critics liked it?

OK that took longer than it should have. From a glance, "Live performances" seems quite lengthy, which I expected when she's sung it many times. I'll wait a few days for you to address above before I delve further into that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

It appears the file source used for File:VogueBlondAmbitionUndergGround (cropped).jpg has expired (based on how I got redirected to the homepage upon clicking it), and I can't find this image through the given website's gallery for Blond Ambition Tour, which makes it harder for me to verify copyright status. If you cannot repair the link, then I recommend using a different pic.
Since there isn't any evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Vogue New York.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work.
When "eight of concert tours" isn't correct grammar, I'm guessing you intended to add "her" between the "of" and "concerts". Also, is this first sentence just meant to provide as a summary of tour performances?
Slant Magazine doesn't say anything about flesh-colored bodysuits, black leotards, or how "Give It To Me" was part of a mashup with this track and "4 Minutes"
MTV News has no mention of "Vogue" at all during her Super Bowl halftime show, though I did thankfully find the details attributed to that link here
The Hollywood Reporter uses "The true crowd-pleasers were purist renditions of 'Like a Prayer' and 'Vogue' that elicited as many squeals as they did goosebumps." Don't refactor the quote by taking song titles out in a way to imply the review didn't list them after "crowd-pleasers" or use "purist renditions".
All seems fine with File:MadonnaO2171023 (67 of 133) (53270845589).jpg
Rolling Stone never brings up bikini tops for Rebel Heart Tour
More deceptive quote refactoring: The Sydney Morning Herald actually says "You've never seen Vogue (normally a slick dance number) performed with such darkness."
"a pride party" → "an LGBT pride party" (don't presume all readers will know which pride this refers to)

You've got some work to do, but it's manageable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: 11JORN seems MIA, so I fixed your requests. See if I missed anything. igordebraga ≠ 06:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns on music video commentary aren't yet resolved for the books I mentioned, and unfortunately one issue that came up with paraphrasing is how "mix[ing] gender signs" uses a "ing" suffix that the book didn't. You also didn't address the deceptive quote altering for live performance reviews. In the meantime, "Cover versions and usage" will be assessed below. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions and usage

Using "comedienne" for "comedienne Julie Brown" reads awkwardly, just go with "comedian" (which is a gender-neutral term and seems to be more commonly used overall)
Not sure Meryl Streep is relevant when discussing The Devil Wears Prada, focus more on the Miranda Priestly character instead. Sue Sylvester for the Glee bit should similarly be the priority over Jane Lynch.
With or without an official release, I think it's worth noting how Rihanna's cover not only was recorded in a studio, but later got leaked
It looks like the flash mobs for this were from 2013, not 2009
"covered 'Vogue' on several live performances"..... the term "several" is vague and best avoided when possible, especially for times when specific counts are known
"The Prismatic World Tour" → "the Prismatic World Tour" (this doesn't formally have "the" in its title)
This is about NYC's 2015 Pride Dance on the Pier, not 2016
"iconic Black women in music, and also names legendary ballroom houses"..... the use of "iconic" and "legendary" here blatantly violate WP:NPOV, also I'm not convinced "Black" should be in upper case here

After I assess "Legacy", the hard part will be over. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Addressed those, along with almost all that I left from the previous batch (found the full quotes from one of the books you questioned but not the other, need to try again). Waiting for the next part. igordebraga ≠ 03:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something 11JORN neglected to do that I'll bring up again now is this: the retrospective reviews for the track should be restored as they help show that "Vogue" continues to get lots of praise many years after its initial release.

Legacy

Everything with File:Madonna Vogue impersonator.jpg is A-OK
"100 Greatest Songs of the 90s" is missing quotation marks, which would help show that this is a title VH1 uses. Same goes for "Best Singles of the '90s" from Slant Magazine
Why is "queer" linked in this section instead of during its first mention (namely within "Reception and analysis" from the music video section)?
"Madonna’s" from "Madonna’s gay dancers were shown" should be "Madonna's" (using straight quotation marks) per MOS:CURLY, and similar changes should be made for the curly apostrophes currently used within "doesn’t mean one can’t still revel in the song’s brilliance, nor do they necessarily suggest anything malicious on Madonna’s part"
When discussing how the vogue dance was "performed mostly in bars and disco of New York City on the underground gay scene", ref#208 (Encyclopedia of Gay Histories and Cultures by George Haggerty) needs a page number
Per WP:REPCITE, this section's third paragraph only needs to use ref#209 at the end of "incorporating it into their music videos and performances".

I expect to get everything else in one go with my next batch of comments. Either way, apologies for this taking longer than many other GAN's do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK without further ado, I'll post the remaining comments now:

Track listing

Replace the semi-colon from "US 7-inch and cassette single; Japanese 3-inch CD single" with a comma

Credits and personnel

Flawless!

Charts

There's no good reason to make things harder on the eyes by having "with 'Keep It Together'" and its ref appear in a smaller size font.
- Apparently it's part of the Template:Single chart.
"2009-2010" should be "2009–2010" per WP:DASH

Certifications and sales

Perfect!

References

All citations need authors and publication dates when known
There are HARVref errors for ref#94 (Guilbert 2002, p. 140) and ref#131 (Fouz-Hernández & Jarman-Ivens 2004, p. 34)
The title of ref#167 should just be "Club Chipmunk: The Dance Mixes" when AllMusic instead belongs as a publication name plus Alvin & the Chipmunks are the performers/authors
On a similar note, take out the "Album by Madonna" bit from the title of ref#221 (Which only uses "Vogue – EP" while Madonna is the artist/author here)
NineMSN → Nine.com.au (without italics)

Overall

Prose: After giving some thought, you can take out any commentary on futuristic/postmodern bits as they're vague at best and don't add much value
Referencing: Some citations are improperly formatted
Coverage: The retrospective reviews still need to be re-added
Neutrality: No remaining bias after I pointed it out
Stability: Looks good without any edit-warring or content disputes
Media: Everything seems A-OK
Verdict: I'll put this nomination on hold. Starting now, you have seven days to address the remaining concerns. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Found the other book I didn't, restored the retrospective reviews, and fixed just about everything, can you point out what could be missing? (particularly references that might need formatting) igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following citations are missing author names:

ref#173, Peter Fawthrop
ref#176, Mad'House (and I forgot to mention earlier how its page title is also just "Absolutely Mad")
ref#216, Eric Henderson
ref#227, Madonna (yes the artist counts when linking to their music files)

On another note, "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title when it can also potentially refer to books written by a subject (doesn't only mean focusing on someone), so let's go with a more specific name. If you aren't going to implement a 1990 VMA performance or "Madonna's 'Vogue' Through the Years" as in-text citations, then I don't see any point in listing them under "external links". Japan, Portugal, and Spain should be mentioned by name under "Commercial performance" as countries this topped the charts of. I'll let you decide whether to add weeks spent at that spot or any debut positions before reaching number one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the refs, changed "Bibliography" to "Works Cited", discovered two of the chart-toppers were wrong (Portugal was #2, and in Japan it only topped by excluding local artists - added an extra column to the chart to note this) - but Spain was already mentioned even before you called me out - and cut the External Links section, as the Slant link was already a ref, but if you think the VMA performance is extraneous I won't disagree. igordebraga ≠ 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now (my bad on overlooking chart bits), and I'll pass! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 15 March 2024 (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.