Talk:3-Way (The Golden Rule)/GA1

GA Review

Passed.

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.

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 18:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, 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):

d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 non-free use rationales):

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I should be able to complete this one today! --K. Peake 18:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

The release date needs to be directly sourced in the body
Use bullet points instead of hlist per Template:Infobox song
Remove comedy from genres since charting on the comedy chart does not inherently make this song that genre
Add a comma before the featuring part in prose
Make the writing/production sentence the second of the lead instead
Remove SNL from brackets when it is already written earlier in the sentence, as that implies this
The host role is not sourced; Gaga is only mentioned as being slated to appear
"on May 24," → "on May 24, 2011," and make the nervous sentence the one before this
Add the genre next to R&B of new jack swing
"with additional production from" → "with further production from"
Lowercase the Futuristics per MOS:THEMUSIC
The lack of understanding does not seem to be what the quote from Gaga sources; reword the "who..." part
Place the music video sentence after the reception and accolades ones in the lead, plus follow this with a mention of the live performance
"The music video," → "The accompanying music video," with the wikilink
"and finds Samberg and Timberlake reprising their roles from that skit" → "that finds Samberg and Timberlake reprising their roles from the skit"
"reviews from critics who" → "reviews from critics, who"

Background and writing

"portrayed in past" → "portrayed in the past" and remove the brackets in this context, plus add the year(s) of these skits
"Speculation only increased when photos of Samberg and Timberlake" → "Speculation increased when photos of the duo"
Wikilink music video
"The track named" → "The track, named"
"written on May 19, with" → "written on May 19, 2011, with" and wouldn't it be better to mention that it was recorded on the following day here instead of the shoot?
Lowercase the Futuristics per MOS:THEMUSIC
"was written with keeping Lady Gaga in mind since she was set to appear on Saturday Night Live" → "was wrote with Gaga in mind since she was set to appear on SNL"

Composition

Audio sample looks good!
Add R&B as a genre per the Los Angeles Times
""3-Way"'s premise follows the early 1990s pop duo" → "the premise of "3-Way" follows the early 1990s pop duo of" removing the brackets, plus do something similar for the Gaga part
Wikilink threesome
Where is the girl quote sourced?
Pipe Payless ShoeSource to Payless (footwear retailer)
"Gaga's character acknowledges that" → "Gaga's character acknowledges" however, this one quote is not sourced
"and that they should follow" → "and they should follow"
"on May 23:" → "on May 23, 2011:"
The quote needs a speech mark to start it, plus you are using the wrong source here

Reception

"received positive reviews" → "were met with positive reviews"
"the skit, writing, "Timberlake" → the skit, writing that "Timberlake"
"with hilarious results."" → "with hilarious results"." per MOS:QUOTE
"impeccable as always,"" → "impeccable as always","
"thought gay," he continued." → "thought gay", he continued."
"the skit "hilarious" and praised" → "the skit "hilarious"; he praised"
"digital short D--- in a Box [sic]."" → "digital short D--- in a Box [sic]"."
"to the track, saying" → "to the track, saying:"
"saying that the composition of the track was comparable to that of their previous release" → "saying the composition was comparable to that of the Lonely Island's previous release"
"debuted at number 7" → "debuted at number seven" per MOS:NUM
Pipe Gaon Download Chart to Circle Chart
"a peak of number 3" → "a peak of number three"
"while reaching number 1" → "while debuting at number one"
Pipe Comedy Digital Tracks to Billboard charts

Music video and live performance

"their characters aka "2:30 AM,"" → "their characters known as "2:30 AM,""
"of the other's mother (played by" → "of the other's mother, played by" and add, respectively after these
"says hi. Jinx!" before" → "says hi. Jinx!", before" with the pipe
"as they sing the song's introduction ("yeah yeah yeah" repeated several times)." → "while singing the song's introduction "yeah yeah yeah" repeatedly."
"on her boots."" → "on her boots"." per MOS:QUOTE
"They are both then seen" → "The two are both then seen"
"in a 3-way."" → "in a 3-way"."
Shouldn't "I Just Had Sex" be mentioned as the third song of the medley earlier on?

Credits and personnel

Pipe audio mastering to Mastering (audio)

Charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Decapitalize Gaon and pipe to Circle Chart
"were with the same suits" → "were in the same suits"

References

Copyvio score looks great at 28.6%!!!!
Remove or replace ref 1 per WP:SELFPUB
Shouldn't ref 3 cite Universal Republic Records?
MOS:CAPS issues with ref 6
WP:OVERLINK of The Hollywood Reporter on ref 9
WP:OVERLINK of Time and MOS:CAPS issues on ref 12
GAON → Gaon on ref 17 and pipe to Circle Chart
WP:OVERLINK of HuffPost and MOS:CAPS issues on ref 21

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; that went as I would have desired! --K. Peake 20:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent review, Kyle Peake! I think I've addressed everything. The only thing I don't agree is about the overlink in the references. Per MOS:REPEATLINK, it's fine "repeating the same link in many citations". Also, in my opinion, a reference can be read at different times in an article, not in chronological order. GagaNutella^talk 14:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass now, I will let the repeated links slide however there was a duplicate ref for Time that I sorted for you! --K. Peake 08:36, 4 March 2023 (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.