# Talk:Move Over

Image:Moveover.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Move Over (song) should be moved to here. Even though there isn't that much information on the page. I might be bold if nobody replies here soon. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It should definitely be moved! There are exactly the same song. We should combine both pages as one to avoid expanding two pages which speak of the exact same thing.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Move Over/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 07:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I will review this soon for the GAN backlog; haven't done one of your articles for quite a while by now! --K. Peake 07:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kyle, thanks for taking the time to review the article. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Write the exact release date in the infobox since that for the album is known
Remove pop rock from genres because the song only has influences of it
Target Richard Stannard to Biffo
"It was originally co-written by Clifford Lane and" → "The song was originally co-written by Clifford Lane with"
The sentence before this one starts with "Move Over" is a song". I think the 2 sentences are too close to use "song" twice. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The most recently referenced musical project is an album though, so "it" reads confusingly in the second sentence. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I changed it as you suggested. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Remove the BBDO advertising agency intro, as that is not notable for the lead
Target "GeneratioNext" to Pepsi Generation
"advertising campaign, and used" → "advertising campaign and used"
Remove Turkey from being after Istanbul because it should not be noted in the lead what country the city is in
"The group co-wrote with" → "The Spice Girls co-wrote with"
The version is not directly mentioned as being extended
The song is 2:46 long, the Pepsi ads are 30-seconds. Is the word extended considered OR when there are 2 sourced lenghts of time and one is longer than the other? Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
No, this is fine actually; my bad for not having compared the lengths, sorry. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"was co-produced by" → "was produced by"
"This version is a" → "The version is a"
"and it is thematically linked" → "which is thematically linked"
"of the song, and later" → "of the song and later"
"on their first live concert," → "for their first live concert,"
Add release year of the concert in brackets


### Background
Target Artist Manager to Talent Manager
Are you sure "toured record labels" is the appropriate phrasing? Also, wikilink record labels.
"the group continued to" → "the Spice Girls continued to"
Target single to Single (music)
"topping the UK Singles Chart" → "with it topping the UK Singles Chart"
"In October, their" → "In October 1996, their" but it is not sourced as being the second single
"released their debut album" → "released their debut studio album"
"third single "2 Become 1", topped" → "third single, "2 Become 1", topped" but it is not sourced as being the third single
"their own particular brand,[11] and" → "their own particular brand and" because [11] is already at the end of the sentence
"The agency then approached" → "The agency subsequently approached" to avoid repetitive wording
The "only covered the UK and Europe" part does not really make sense, as the UK is part of that continent; either remove the country from being before Europe and reword to mention that it was in Europe and specifically the UK if this is true (I can't see the source)
I changed it to UK and the rest of Europe.
This part is actually me paraphrasing a quote of Robert Dodds. His complete comment on the Music Week article: "The first deal that we did was the Pepsi deal. They were smart in believing in the girls and we initially did a deal that covered the UK and Europe. They got in early. This was probably October 1996 and, by the time they actually wanted to run the activity, the girls were the biggest thing on the planet. It genuinely built their business globally. It ran around the world."  Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not taking out of context with the paraphrasing, plus the rewording is fine for placing emphasis on the UK like the quote does. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"now expanded to" → "which had been expanded to"
"of 19 Entertainment commented" → "of 19 Entertainment, commented"
"their business globally"." → "their business globally."" per MOS:QUOTE on full sentences


### Writing and release
The entirety of the source identifies the slogan as "Generation Next", not "GeneratioNext"
Some articles have it as a one word and others as two words, however all the actual merchandise and the tv ads have it as "GeneratioNext".
Original Super Bowl Commercial
Spice Girls First Commercial
I added another source for the slogan. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Neat addition! --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"and international markets" → "while it set to replace those for international markets"
[18] should be solely at the end of the para, as it is the only ref here
"bought four minutes of" → "bought around four minutes of" per the source: "four to four-and-a-half minutes of commercial time"
"The commercials were" → "The commercial was" since it was only one at the Super Bowl
Wikilink executive vice president to itself per MOS:LINK2SECT
Not sure I understand this, what is the difference between the direct link to the section and the redirect? Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Linking to a redirect to a section is advisable, as this does not require as many bytes as adding the section direct yourself. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I changed the wikilink. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"at Pepsi described" → "at Pepsi, described"
"creating "Move Over" it" → "creating "Move Over", it"
"product placement, she commented:" → "product placement; she commented,"
"mocked past musical styles" → "mock past musical styles"
Target rave to Rave music
"metal" urging listeners to "don't do" → "metal", urging listeners to not "do"
"while embrancing the" → "while embracing the"
"of the "Move Over" jingle" → "of the jingle"
"two-minute 46-second version" → "two-minutes and 46-seconds version" plus this area is where should try and source it being extended
Not sure what you mean by "source it being extended", the EW source mentions that the song is 2:46, the commercials are 30-second long. The sentence doesn't mention directly that is an extended version but isn't this implied? Plus is important to mention that the Melody Maker review of Spiceworld called the song an "extended advert" in a dismissive way, which is discussed in the reception section. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Do not need to source actually, per my earlier addresal. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"the song,[20] was" → "the song was" and move [20] to being directly before [21]
"in a press conference" → "during a press conference"
"of the group's second studio album Spiceworld," → "of Spiceworld,"
Other than the lead, this is the first mention of Spiceworld. I think the description and wikilink are correct since it will be the first mention on the article body. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Fine, but remove wikilink since this should generally not be done for things that are the main subject of articles. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I kept the description and removed the wikilink. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the release date, the album article says 1 November 1997 so change to that and add the source from there if the book is inadequate. Also, mention the song ultimately being released as the sixth track.
The album was released on 1 November 1997 in Japan, the 3 November date is for the UK/European release. I have sources for the latter. It's a known fact inside the group's fandom that their albums/singles used to release in Japan first, ("Wannabe" for example was released in Japan 2 weeks before it was released in the UK, and Spice a month and a half in advance) but this is not verifiable by a reliable source. I don't really consider Amazon a quality source, even though in this case they do have the correct Japanese release date. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Target songwriting to Songwriter
"It was later included" → ""Move Over" was later included as the sixth track"


### Composition and lyrics
The similar structure is not sourced for the audio sample text; lyrics are not directly but you can keep that due to the ones here matching up with the original's in the prior section
Pop rock influences are not sourced; [24] only backs up rock 'n' roll influences – maybe also use 38 for rock influences?
Swap [25] and [24] around, as they are not in the correct order for going alongside the genre and influences currently
"characterized it as a" → "characterized the song as a"
"described it as a" → "described it as" unless there is an appropriate term at the end of the quote that you forgot, then add that
"followed by the repeated" → "that is followed by the repeated"
"as its chord progression." → "as the chord progression." to avoid overusage of "it"
[20] should be solely at the end of the sentence
The references 29 and 30 are to source the energetic part:
29 (Most people will recognize the song Move Over as it is the Pepsi "Generation Next" theme song on the TV commercial featuring the Spice Girls. [...] The full-length versions of both songs are on Spiceworld. The songs are energetic and full of attitude).
30 (a 2-minute, 46-second brainless pop wonder that drives forward with a truckload of energy). Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I do understand what you mean but if you are using a source for two separate points in a sentence, that one should only be at the end. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh I think I understand now, I placed the reference 20 first to mantain the order in the citation numbers. If I place it at the end, it will be [29][30][20]. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"and a "rousing"" → "as well as a "rousing""
Try to mention the similar structure at this point, if you are able to source it
"combines their voices with" → "combines the Spice Girls' voices with"
Target chord to Chord (music)
"has been described as" → "have been described as"
"generation breaking free"." → "generation breaking free."" per MOS:QUOTE
The complete quote fom Halliwell: "Obviously, this is the Pepsi track. It's about the next generation breaking free, and we all go a bit nutty when we perform it live! Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Target hip-hopped to Hip hop music
Remove target on rap
"was described it by" → "was described by"
Target word association to Word Association
Remove excess space before celebration
[38] does not back up any of the last sentence, unless you mention repetition here
The Dotmusic source is used because of the "rap at the end" part, but I don't think I should move it next to the Baltimore Sun reference since that is directly referencing a quote. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


### Sponsorship deal
#### Promotional campaign
"the group, and their" → "the group and their"
"and helped to expand the group's" → "and helped expand the Spice Girls'"
"North and South America." → "both North and South America."
"at Virgin Records commented" → "at Virgin, commented"
"a exclusive CD single" → "an exclusive CD single"
"It resulted in the company" → "This resulted in the company"
"also ran in" → "also ran in the"
requiered → required
"singing and dancing" → "as well as singing and dancing"
"It premiered the first week" → "They premiered the first week"
"and later expanded to" → "before later expanding to"
"the group performed" → "the Spice Girls performed"
Remove target on two live concerts since you wikilink to the concert later on


#### Aftermath
"UK franchise holder estimated" → "UK franchise holder, estimated"
"between 500,000 and 600,000 CDs" → "between 450,000 and 500,000 CDs"
Reference 50 is an article from Brandweek called "The Spice trade", in page 34 there is a mention of the 600,000 copies. Reference 44 is from Campaign, they have the 450,000 - 500,000. Should I place 450 to 600? Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that would be ideal now I have awareness of this context. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The 30% figure is not mentioned by [50], or are you using [39] for this but keeping it solely at the end of the para due to backing up later info?
Same as above, in page 34 of the "The Spice trade" article there is a mention of the 30% by Simon Lowden. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"23% volume share up from their usual 18%" → "23.5% volume share up from their usual 18.7%" per the source, but it is not mentioned that Simon Lowden was the one to report this
Same as above. The Brandweek article mention 23% and 18%. I think you have the 2 sources mixed. Do you have access to The Wikipedia Library Card? The article from Brandweek is available for free through that platform. I could send you the pdf via email if you prefer. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
And which of the 2 should I consider, the exact numbers or the rounded ones? Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not have access, but you needn't send me the email per WP:GOODFAITH and I believe the more exact figures are preferable; 23.5 and 18.7 would be rounded up usually anyway. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I moved the citations to source the section accordingly. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"collecting 18 ring pull tabs" → "gathering 18 ring pull tabs" to avoid repetitive wording
"during May and June." → "during May and June of 1998."
"a one-track CD Single" → "a one-track promotional single on CD" with the target


### Critical reception
Merge with the below section and retitle to Reception and promotion, as three paras is a good size for a section
I don't think the topic of the two sections go together. The promotion info is already on the Sponsorship deal section, plus the content in Live performances have a sentence from their 2019 tour, not really about promotion. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This is acceptable reasoning to oppose. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The first para should be ordered thematically, following the negative reviews by the less critical ones
I moved the order of the reviews from negative to positive, let me know if this is fine. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it is fine being the other way round; just needed thematic ordering. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"The" is not needed before Melody Maker
"called it an" → "called the song an"
"J. D. Considine of The Baltimore Sun was critical" → "Considine was critical"
I don't agree with this one, if I search for the article and decide to only look through some sections like the reception (I have done this before) it will be confusing to just read Considine without the publication's name. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It is fine to keep the publication name, even though you have erased his forename. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Added the complete name. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"the Spice Girls appeared to" → "the Spice Girls appear to"
"is, it pays"." → "is, it pays.""
"pretty thin anyway"." → "pretty thin anyway.""
I think the punctuation should be outside since the quote from the Boston Globe is not complete: "As to the Pepsi commercial, why not? They're not Ray Charles. There's no credibility to lose. The walls between overt commercialism and pop music are pretty thin anyway, so the fact that "Move Over" on "Spiceworld" doubles as a Pepsi jingle: Why, hey, you go, girls!" Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The second para should be ordered thematically too; try to put the reviews calling it an album highlight first and follow positive by less receptive
I moved the order of the reviews from positive to negative, let me know if this is fine. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
See previous comment. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"magazine's had a more positive opinion, calling it" → "magazine had a more positive opinion, calling the track"
"received mixed opinions" → "was met with mixed opinions"
"thought it was" → "thought the song was"
"the songs on the album" → "the songs on Spiceworld,"
"called it one of" → "called the latter one of"
"Edna Gundersen writing for USA Today described" → "Edna Gundersen, writing for USA Today, described"
"and pointed it as" → "and pointed it out as"
"on the track, altough" → "on the track; although"
Vulture.com should be italicised
"placed it at number six," → "placed the track as their sixth best song,"


### Live performances
Make this the last para of the above section; one para for a section is too short when another is not too large for a merger
I have seen articles with smaller sections, I don't think the paragraph is particularly small. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It is fine, as the previous one is large enough in the prose amount of its two paras. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"the group performed" → "the Spice Girls performed"
Remove the info about Istanbul being in Turkey since you have already mentioned the city as located in the country
"small break wearing silver boilersuits, while" → "after a small break, wearing silver boilersuits while"
Wikilink pay-per-view
Wikilink VHS
Add release year of the concert in brackets
Should I put the very first release on VHS in 1998? It was later released on DVD in 2008, and then a re-issue in 2015. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Initial release would be most appropriate. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Added. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"In the performance," → "During the performance,"
"play the role of" → "played the role of"


### Format and track listing
Good


### Credits and personnel
Replace colon with a full-stop
Replace and with comma after keyboards


### References
Copyvio score looks very good at 20.0%!!
Make sure all of these that can be are archived by using the tool
WP:OVERLINK of MRC Media & Info on ref 21
Wikilink Virgin Records on ref 22
Ref 27's archive does not work, or is that because I'm not logged in?
The original link was from a subscription-only database that appears to be dead, the archived link shows the details of the article (author, date, page, title). Should I remove the url info and just cite it as a newspaper? Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good. --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed the dead URL. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Target EMI Swindon to EMI on ref 53
Cite Vulture.com as work/website instead for ref 64
Remove target on Virgin Music Video on ref 68


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed; I did notice you not using British English at quite a few points though. --K. Peake 12:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Can you please point out which parts to make the changes. Frcm1988 (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Frcm1988 I made that comment as a general summarisation of the changes requested, like I often do for articles and I did point out all examples of any incorrect English form. As for your comments in reply to me, thank you and I have responded where it was significant to do so! --K. Peake 12:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake I believe I made the remaining changes and responded to all the comments. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Frcm1988  Pass now, but I moved the ref accordingly because you were confused with what I meant there even after the explanation, plus I got rid of J. D. Considine's forename on the second mention since when noting that on my point I was actually doing it to show what you'd done correctly, but did not specify that at the time. --K. Peake 06:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for your time Kyle Peake. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)