# Talk:Addicted to You (Hikaru Utada song)

Image:Utada Hikaru - Addicted To You.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Addicted to You (Hikaru Utada song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 09:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Infobox
"and mixed at Flyte Tyme, Edina, Minnesota" (under the Recording parameter) seems like a bit too much detail for the infobox.


### Background and release
""Addicted to You" was written by Utada and produced by Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis." — The infobox also says that Utada produced the song. If this is true, mention it here as well.
"all other instruments" — Do we know what these instruments were?
"isa" —> "is a"
"CD format by Emi" — Use "EMI" (uppercase) consistently.
"second studio effort" — From context, "effort" seems to mean "studio album". Is this really a normal phrase? I've never heard it before.
"The cover sleeve features two clones of Utada" — "clones"? Does this mean "shots" or "pictures"?
"instrumentald" —> "instrumental"
"Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis (pictured) had produced" — "had" should be removed and personally, I wouldn't include "(pictured)" either.
I'll continue the review shortly. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


### Reception
"Nagasawa Tomonori from Barks.com favored the albums singles as the best tracks." — I can only see a machine-translated version of this review, but it seems to be about the album rather than this song. It mentions "Addicted to You" but doesn't really seem to comment on it specifically; if the review doesn't actually speak about the song, then I'm not sure it should be mentioned here.
The "hottest" comment doesn't seem to be referring to "Addicted to You" either; it seems to be talking about either the album in general or "Can You Keep a Secret?"
Why is CDJournal ([1]) reliable? I can't find an About page on their website; we describe the content as a "staff review" but I can't see any evidence that the comments in question are written by professional staff.
[2] (ref #11) seems to be a dead link. It's not strictly necessary for GA, but I'd recommend adding an archivelink (e.g. [3]) to the reference.
"The song stayed in the weekly chart for fifteen weeks." — I think this text should be moved back a sentence, because it seems to be talking about the Oricon chart rather than sales.
"...her second best..." — Replace "her" with "Utada's" or "Hikaru Utada's" (as her name isn't mentioned in that paragraph).
"ranked alongside her singles..." — I don't understand why we need a list of all of Utada's singles here. I can possibly understanding mentioning by name the three that sold over 1 million units, but even that's probably too much.
"It stayed at number one for two weeks, and thirteen weeks overall." — I think this means "It stayed at number one for two weeks, and remained on the chart for thirteen weeks"; it's currently a bit unclear.
If these are the only reviews of the song that exist, I'm not even sure the article meets WP:NSONGS (especially given that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability"). I'd like some evidence that it does before I carry on with the review. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 12:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there @Bilorv:. Thank you for taking your time out to conduct this review for the "GA" status. So, the main problem was that when I nominated the article in April 2015, I had moved on from it and basically "abandoned" it. After having more articles passed that I had edited and submitted, I decided to go through the nominations I submitted and edit some of them to make them the same quality as the articles that had been passed. I did not manage to re-edit this article in order to remove unnecessary stuff or anything that was considered a "filler" (basically made an excuse of dumping information, that from the Reception sub-article). I decided to remove majority of the reviews and other errors that had no reason for being in the article and researched more websites that reviewed the single (hence new additions of Allmusic, Warr.org, Yahoo! Music). I did some changes to what you requested and I inserted a live performances/promotion sub-article to detail the performances Utada had included on her tours. I hope this is enough evidence to help the WP:NSONGS critter .
Regarding your CDJournal note, the website is actually an online version of the magazine (you can view here and here for all the magazines including theres that they supply. This might sound like a stupid reply, but I believe that they are written by the staff of the CDJournal (their reviews) and I stick by the CD reviews, but you may request me to remove if it's not sufficient. Cheers CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and overhauling the article so quickly. I think the song just scrapes past WP:NSONGS: I count two decent reviews about the song, not just the album, an award and some decent positions on sales charts; everything I mentioned above has been addressed (I'm happy enough CDJournal is reliable) apart from one comment I'll bring up below. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


### Critical reception
"Chief an editor for..." — Editor in chief?
"commending the songs "rich production"..." — This is untrue; the quotes in question were about the album, not the song.
"Online music critics Wilson and Alroy commented that while the parent album and its songs were her "least rewarding work" and "distressingly drab," he selected "Addicted for You" as an album stand out." — The source cited does not say this; it says "Utada produced "Addicted To You" with Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis" and nothing else about the individual song.
"The lyrics that bring out this feeling of greediness is [...]" — Don't include this sentence if you're not including the lyrics in question.
""Song(s) of the Year"" — The source calls it "Song of the Year". That's the proper name for the award; remove the "(s)".


### Commercial response
"The song was certified million by RIAJ for shipments of one million units, and sold 1.7 million units in total, making it the thirty-ninth best selling single in Japan music history and Utada's second best selling single behind "Automatic/Time Will Tell" and is her fourth millionth selling single." — I think the sentence has too many "ands"; split it into two.
Reference 16 seems more like a note ("These singles are also her million-selling certified singles:") and it seems to be quite confusing following the text "["Addicted to You" is] her fourth million selling single". It might also be worth including the provenance of that statistic (e.g. "According to Oricon, the song was Utada's fourth million selling single") in the body of the text.
""Addicted to You" became Utada's fourth consecutive single to reach number one on the Japanese Count Down TV chart." — The source after the next sentence doesn't say this, so I think we need a note saying something like "Following [single 1], [2] and [3].".


### Promotion and other appearances
"four of Utada's live Japanese tours concert including" — The article then lists each of the four concerts; "including" implies that there are more items in the list that aren't mentioned. Replacing "including" with a colon would fix this.


### Personnel
"Credits adapted from the promotional CD single;" — The semicolon should be a full stop.
"The RIAJ threshold had changed in July 2003" — The word "had" is not necessary here. But more importantly, I'm not quite sure what this note means and why it's necessary to have it there. It needs a bit more explanation.


### Lead and other comments
External links aren't covered by GA criteria, but I thought I'd point out that [4] is a dead link anyway. The correct page for the lyrics doesn't seem to have the LF logo on it, so per the documentation of this we shouldn't link to it.
I've just noticed that the infobox says "November 10, 1999", while the Background and release section says "10 November 1999" (and the lead uses DMY too). Choose one and be consistent.
"10 November 2000" is in the lead — The rest of the article says "1999".
The Amazon source cited for the release date says "Audio CD (September 6, 1999)" under Product details, and doesn't say "10 November" anywhere.
"Utada wrote the track and Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis produced it, her first collaboration with American producers and composers." — This isn't mentioned later on in the article, or sourced. The grammar doesn't quite seem to work here either: "...produced it: this was her first collaboration..." would be okay, but this seems to belong under Background and release.
""Addicted to You" ... discusses about themes of love and relationships." — This appears in the lead but, again, is neither mentioned in the article body nor sourced.
"a music critics had viewed" —> "one music critic viewed".
I'm placing the article  on hold for a week. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 DONE – Hi there @Bilorv:, I've done what you had said from the above. I have changed, removed, edited, re-arranged, etc. parts of the article and statements to make them more appropriate and readable for the viewer. If there is anything that needs to be changed, please don't hesitate and I'll get on to it :) Thank you for the review and I'm looking forward to the result. Cheers. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the swift responses; everything has been fixed. Pass for GA. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Addicted to You (Utada Hikaru song). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/1999/199905.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2000/200001.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2000/200007.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2000/200009.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2001/2001_04.pdf
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2002/200203.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Addicted to You (Utada Hikaru song). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tbs.co.jp/cdtv/songdb/song4298-j.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Addicted to You (Utada Hikaru song). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160116050220/http://www.utadahikaru.jp/sc/review.htm to http://www.utadahikaru.jp/sc/review.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)