GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sunday/Monday MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan Good, that's more than a week before I go on holiday so I will be able to respond in time! Kyle Peake (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)--[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

 Done for all with a few changes

Background and recording

[edit]
MarioSoulTruthFan Good now? Kyle Peake (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, what does "gathering musical elements" means? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarioSoulTruthFan I don't really see how it doesn't make sense, I quoted the information as best as possible from the source. Have a look at it and maybe see if you could recommend any re-wordings? --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He picks up the drums, the guitar and melts everything together or is it some expression I'm not familiar with? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarioSoulTruthFan I'm actually not 100% sure as McCartney didn't specify it, removed as there is still other background info. Pass now? Kyle Peake (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reference track means a track laid out for the flow of the main artist.

 Done

Thanks for the explanation, please add the "co-written by American rapper"

 Done

Composition

[edit]

 Done but didn't place the above where you requested as it is the ending of the song so should be end of para. Also the section is currently ordered in the order of the song's musical elements that I know come after one another from having heard it. I didn't put directly "after this", so doing this order does not amount to WP:OR.

Agree MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release and artwork

[edit]

 Done

Critical reception

[edit]

The second doesn't pass the copyvio as offensive and reads better in quotes

It's not about that, it's about using your own words the most you can if those quotes can be easily replaced, which is the case. "West's flow is outstanding and the song is "catchy enough" to make anyone dance. Foy elaborated, writing that listenres might get grumpy as the rapper's daily routine is more excinting than theirs." Just an example

 Done

Accolades

[edit]

 Done

Music video

[edit]

Background and synopsis

[edit]

This is my bad, that sentence is referencing "I Feel Like That" not the single; fixed.

It is still not the appropriate section or it. Perhaps a note for it, like the one for the producers and co-producers? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright now?
Yes MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Reception

[edit]

 Done

Commercial performance

[edit]

As it is giving parallel of the performance that the two songs experienced, so wouldn't call this trivial since they are relevant/notable comparisons throughout; this is similar to the information given by you on "That's What I Like" about other singles.

To begin with, it is very different from That's What I Like "It surpassed his previous seven-week number-one runs for "Just the Way You Are" (2010) and "Locked Out of Heaven" (2013)" → I'm talking about breaking his own records. I took a closer look at West's discography and he spent a year out of the top 20, but during that year he only released one song, and tbh "FourFiveSeconds" is a top ten single. It's not like he spent 5 years out of the top 20. Makes no sense writing this. Is if I wrote "Grenade is Mars second number-one single since his last Just The Way You Are" (first and second single from his debut album).
It's similar to you referencing other songs like Kendrick Lamar's work even though they are not by Mars. I don't see any reason to remove this, plus "Only One" failed to reach the top 20 though it was released on New Year's Eve so couldn't chart until '15.
Different because he replaced Lamar at the top of the chart and was blocked by Shape of You for 4 weeks. A very different case, I don't mention this on other articles that song's don't go to the top position. Let's try this, "Additionally, the song and "FourFiveSeconds" became his first top-20 singles in the United States since 2013's "Bound 2"" → Additionally, the song became his second top-20 single in the United States in 2015?

This is not trivial as it is giving the parallel in performance of a fellow West and McCartney collab

Not saying it's trivial, but this is just not the place for it. Doesn't matter who is featured on the single.
It's giving a parallel in performance of a relevant single so I am not removing it as it gives information of interest to the topic.
You are comparing certifications of other singles if that's the case you need to add all the certifications of the other singles. I never saw this on any other articles. I don't understand why is it so interesting for this topic. The certification of this song is indeed important.
I am only comparing this certification as they were certified in the same month and both are West/McCartney collabs so it is notable, not adding every single as that would be overkill and I didn't imply to do so. Can you find anything against this at MOS? --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be realistic here. So if we take a look at other examples like this you have songs by Rhianna with Drake and others by Rhianna and Eminem with some being GA's and FA's articles that don't draw these comparisons, might do some commercial performance comparison but not in certifications (different timings, sales going down and so on). MOS is not that specific and you know that. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Wallonia chart?

So the ultratip works like Hot 100 bubbling under, it's not an important peak, so replace it by the Belgium Urban (Ultratop Flanders)

 Done

Live performances

[edit]

 Done

[edit]
What do those mean?
I don't understand which version was used for the commercial.
Oh so that's what you meant... changed to "the single" as Mande's track wasn't a single.

 Done

Track listing

[edit]

Credits and personnel

[edit]

 Done but not for second

Weekly charts

[edit]

Year-end charts

[edit]

 Not done if they didn't chart on the other charts you can add and the song didn't chart on any major year-end charts so these can be added to this sub-section; see WP:USCHARTS.

I agree with you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

[edit]

Release history

[edit]

Those are all of the countries it charted in and once I've done it, it's not like anyone is offended by it

It's not about charting, it could have charted in 100 countries you would have added the 100 release dates, it makes no sense. I'm sure it was released in more countries.
I never said that, it's only 14 countries which isn't that many and plus once I've put in the effort to add a source referencing all of them, it's not offending anyone to leave the source as these are the only "notable" countries; this is similar to "Turn Up The Music" or "Don't Wake Me Up".
Revelant countries for you, I might not consider them revelant. I might call on other editor to give input on this matter, as we can't see to agree on this. What do you think? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well just think about it: is 14 really that much? Plus as I said, once I've already added it, the content isn't offensive and it is relevant as the song was top 100 in all of those countries - I'm not adding countries it didn't chart in. Do you understand now?
That's beside the point, it's not about being offensive. I could add a country it didn't chart in, that doesn't matter. It is relevant finding a source it says it was released in various countries in iTunes when that doesn't happen. Add a couple of iTunes links. Not 14 of them. Honestly, you could use the Pitchfork source and it would be fine as it says it was released on Itunes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only links to US iTunes though, could you look at MOS to find anything against this? That's better than reaching out to other editor(s).

1 "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances." → "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information." Sure it's not directly at this but at the same time it is as falls under the same umbrella. I'm giving you seven, more than enough. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

The belgium chart gives all of the chart positions and others have used it because of this, plus the source is reliable

That's not what I meant, let me explain it better. I'm trying to say is to link each country to their own peak on the chart table as if a reader wants to digger deep on let's say the Danish chart is automatically directed to the weeks it spent on the chart, number of those and so on. This way it doesn't have to go to Belgium chart to then change to the Danish one. Am I making myself clear? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

MarioSoulTruthFan addressed everything, pass now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it today, later on. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dope, only one day before I go on holiday. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: missing something on the background section. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]