# Talk:Zou Bisou Bisou

Why does the fact that this song was used on Mad Men warrant several paragraphs—fully half the article? --Tysto (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
And why do those paragraphs consist so heavily of a list of sentences that various reviewers have used to describe the scene ... very redundantly and uninterestingly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.61.176 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 
Agreed. Can we please fix this? It's ridiculous.StatelySquirrel (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the "Themes" section is half written about Mad Men, which has absolutely nothing to do with the song... 198.244.109.249 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I logged in specifically to comment on this. I like Mad Men, but this is ridiculous. It's like visiting an article page on Hitler or De Gaulle, and have half of it about some academic's study. An article about World War II and have half of it about, say, Saving Private Ryan. It's incredibly amateurish - the critical response, in particular, should just be removed and put in another article (Zou Bisou Bisou in Mad Men or something). And there can be a disambiguation link at the top. Sapienza (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zou Bisou Bisou/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Tony, I will begin reviewing this article shortly. 

No disambiguation links
1 Uncategorized redirect
"Zou Bisou Bisou" or "Zoo Be Zoo Be Zoo" is a 1960 single that was released under the same name ten hours after its performance on the March 25, 2012 Mad Men's season 5 premiere episode "A Little Kiss" on the AMC Channel. Gillian Hills claims the song was her first single in the summer of 1960 as "Zou Bisou Bisou" and Jessica Paré performed the song on Mad Men as Megan Draper in a scene set in summer 1966. --> Claims? Why exactly is a cover version of the song used in the first sentence? And if it was her first single, why is the song infobox used? For someone who is not familiar with the song, the lead confuses the hell out of me.
This article is clearly just focused on Jessica Paré's version of the song, correct? Why not just have her as the artist of the song, and include information about how previous artists performed the song. At a quick look at the references, it seems as if they are all about her version of the song.
Typically, when a song has multiple versions, they are all in the same article. See my WP:FA that just passed this week: "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)" or see a song like "I Will Always Love You". Both of those songs are songs where the most critically acclaimed version of the song was not the original. Do you really think we should present this as if it is Pare's song?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that, but this is a different case altogether. Here, all the references relate to Pare's version of the song. Check out "No Me Ames", for example, it's a Spanish translation of an Italian song entitled "Non Amarmi". It's not notable enough on its own, so it's just mentioned that it was originally recorded by others. Do you understand what I mean? Statυs (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll get to it in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I will put the article on hold for a few days so you can get to these issues. It isn't exactly clear what is going on with the song.
Is it now formatted as you suggested?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  14:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


### New format review
I took it upon myself to adjust the article a bit more. There are, however, some remaining issues:
Lead
Ten hours after its on-air performance --> It isn't really relevant as to how many hours after the performance it was made available. The following day works fine.
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Before going onto the other versions of the song, how about stating something along the lines of: "Zou Bisou Bisou" was recorded by various artists before Paré.
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Background and production
The lead is clear on the origins of the song, while this bit here is a confusing. It just goes to state: "Several sources state that Hills did not produce her version until 1961", while the lead says: "Although most sources associate the origins of the song with Hills, New York claims the songwriting credits make it more likely that Loren's version was the original."
iTunes --> iTunes Store
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Has it been released to Amazon or in stores yet? This was several months ago.
Only other versions are at Amazon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  05:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Usually people record in a recording studio. What recording studio?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Status (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2012‎ (UTC)
Are you talking about the Paré version? Don't TV studios, have sound studios that are sufficient for recording music.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
as well as two vinyl editions online --> made available online
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  04:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Charts
Where's the source for the chart position?
Added?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  04:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Verdict
All issues have been addressed. Passing the article! Statυs (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The name Michel Rivgauche is mentioned in the opening paragraph, but not mentioned afterwards. I'm confused about his role with the song. Any help? Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  07:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the inclusion of this image. The fact that the scene is encyclopedic and covered in reliable sources is not in of itself relevant for WP:NFCC; none of the coverage is talking specifically about visual aspects (it talks about how the scene is "sexy" or "sultry", but much of that is referring to movement and to the singing style as much as--or more--than what can be seen in just one static image, and besides that is not something that an image is needed to explain). The picture really doesn't convey information that wasn't already clear from the text, or improve readers' understanding; it seems to be there mainly as decoration. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the picture does not depict a "sexy" or "sultry" scene?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. looking at the video in the infobox, possibly screen caps at either 78 (hair and handsflying) or 94 (lifting her miniskirt) seconds would convey the scene better. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I am saying that concept is not something that needs a non-free image to illustrate, especially given that the article already has a link to the video. The fact that some reviewers called the scene "sultry" is neither something that readers can't understand without a non-free image, nor something essential to the article (even though the article suffers badly from WP:RECENTISM and focuses almost entirely on one recent cover of the song, that performance is not what defines it). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the scene in the picture the subject of critical commentary in the current version of the article? There are all kinds of things that could be sexy. This picture depicts a particular sexpot in action to aid the viewer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I've requested outside opinions at WP:MCQ. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No matter the merits or necessity of the image, it currently fails WP:NFCC#10c because there is no fair-use rationale for its inclusion. ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
FUR added to satisfy NFCC#10c.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  10:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This NFUR seems to grossly misunderstand what justifies fair use. The song was available for download on iTunes, so Wikipedia needs to show a non-free image of someone lip-syncing it? Really? rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Omission of File:Jessica Paré … .jpg would not be detrimental to reader understanding; so the use fails WP:NFCC#8. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the photo is already used properly to identify the subject of the episode article. The excessive coverage in the present article (which unbalances the article) should be replaced by a brief summary and a link to that article as the main article. If that were done the use here would be totally redundant. —teb728 t c 07:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Look at A Little Kiss#Zou Bisou Bisou. It does not discuss the sexy/sultry scene mentioned here.  You are instructing me to link to an article that does not describe that which is summarized in this section. Also, note the importance of this scene to that article. This image is the main image of that article. This section merely summarizes the secondary sources in a manner that conveys to the reader how broad the coverage of this scene was in the press. As asked above, looking at the video in the infobox, possibly screen caps at either 78 (hair and handsflying) or 94 (lifting her miniskirt) seconds would convey the "sexy" / "sultry" scene better. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  10:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have shortened the paragraph by 761 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  10:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Review of the scene would be more relevant in A Little Kiss than here. This article should mainly be about the song itself, not reaction to the Mad Men episode (which already has its article). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I have swapped in the sexy/sultry screen cap and shortened the text more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  16:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. It's not that you need a different image; it's that an image of this scene is not necessary in this article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This song is notable and is primarily notable for the latest version of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  16:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Neither I nor anyone else in the discussion suggested that the song isn't notable. This never was a discussion about notability. No need to change the subject. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK, the song is primarily notable for the 2012 version. I have now chopped nearly 1000 characters from that section to make it less unbalanced, but as is usually the case the best way to balance a topic is to expand other elements rather than prune an existing one. I am just not a good enough music researcher to expand the ZBB article enough so that the content that I added is not out of balance. However, a modern GA or FA of an individual song might very easily include a section like this. I am just unable to broaden the rest of the article so that this is the case. For example, I have a FA for a song (Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)). It is the case that the most readily available critical commentary is for the more recent version rather than for the original commercial success.  The critical commentary for that version of the song is 2595 characters. This is not unusual. The critical commentary of "Zou Bisou Bisou" is now at 2372 characters. There are many 21st century songs or 21st century versions of songs with several thousands of characters just related to its critical commentary. I just don't see that section of the article as being out of balance in proportion to what a well-developed article might be for this topic. Unbalanced claims should only be used of the content is so excessive that even in a well-developed version of the article it would be out of proportion. I don't feel this section is out of balance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the content that the new image supports includes quotes such as "a barely there miniskirt", "Showing a lot of leg — and chutzpah" and "sultry style icon". I think the new FU image clearly provides strong support for the related text in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  23:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue is not whether the text mentions the thing depicted but rather whether a photo is needed for reader understanding of the text. Readers don't need need a photo to understand "a barely there miniskirt" etc. Maybe if there was sourced controversy on how long the skirt was... —teb728 t c 02:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Although I am a contributor to "A Little Kiss", where this image is clearly displayed as it was a highly discussed scene among critics, I do not think the image belongs/is needed here. Extensive critical coverage, most of which conveys the same depiction of the performance, is sufficient. Wyliepedia 06:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I think even the coverage there now needs to be mostly moved to A Little Kiss. Reviewers talking about Megan Draper's skirt are not the same as reviewers talking about the song itself, and we don't need like 10 quotes saying the same thing. A sentence saying the song got a lot of attention after appearing in Mad Men, with a bunch of references, would be plenty; the amount of focus currently given to the show in this article (which is about a song, not about Mad Men) is simply undue weight. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have chopped it about like you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot see link without going through a Youtube login screen, which could easily be a phishing attempt. Should not allow links to pages that require login credentials. This is a slippery slope. 76.176.158.96 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)