Talk:BBD (song)/GA1

GA Review

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Carbrera, and I'll be reviewing this article for possible good article submission.

Full review coming very soon. Carbrera (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

You could probably describe the photo itself in the alt

You should remove the promotional singles chronology; I've never seen this before in an infobox

Not done, I don't really think this is a strong reasoning for removing the chronology. Regular singles have chronology so why not promotional ones? I got the idea from Lily Allen's articles, such as "Sheezus". Azealia911 _talk

But both of Allen's promotional singles that have that chronology box are not GA articles. Personally, this looks very unflattering to me. But if you feel this would truly benefit the article than I have no reason to argue with you. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Remove the source from the first sentence; sources aren't needed in the lead

Not done. Per WP:CITELEAD, sources are only not needed in the lead if the text they are sourcing is later referenced within the article. The references in the lead back up two pieces of information that are not mentioned or sourced later in the article (The fact that "BBD" stands for 'bad bitches do it' and that it isn't an official single).

I don't necessarily like the inclusion of the last sentence in the lead, but if you want it to remain I'm fine with that

Background

Paragraph 1

Instead of saying "It was confirmed to be apart...", could you say "The track was confirmed to be apart..."? I think this wording sounds better (In my opinion...)

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Add a source for when the label didn't like "BBD"; this sentence does not contain a source

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Add a source for when Banks left Interscope and Polydor; this sentence also does not contain a source

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Paragraph 2

The first paragraph is quite large compared to this one; it's not necessary that this one be expanded, but could it be? Perhaps?

Not done. I don't see how I can milk a 2-minute YouTube video any more. Azealia911 _talk

Good. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Capitalize 'Twitter' and provide a link to it where it's mentioned

Capitalised but not sourced. It's someone's own words so it doesn't need to be sourced, plus she's now deleted her account.

The sentence with the above suggestion is a bit long; however, it probably doesn't need to be condensed

Critical reception

After reading the reviews from critics; I'd go as far as saying "BBD" received acclaim. There is no mention of a negative review, so...?

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Other than what I mentioned this a very good section :)

Live performances

Nothing to add here.

Credits and personnel

The 'Personnel' section could be condensed to:
- Azealia Banks - Vocals, songwriting
- Sup Doodle - Co-production
- Jonathan Harris - Songwriting
- Kevin James - Songwriting
- Rick McRae - Co-production, engineering, recording, mixing
What do you think of that? [^] I feel like this would be better, but I don't have too much of a problem with what you currently have included in the article

I'm not too over-the-moon about completely omitting the samples and recording locations, they weren't included in the infobox so that it wouldn't look too clunky.

I wasn't saying eliminate the samples and recording locations, just condensing the 'personnel' section. Otherwise it's fine. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

Nothing to add here... again! ;)

References

[2] - Could you provide a link to New Yorker from here, since Vulture is an extension of it?

Done. Azealia911 _talk

Other than that, the sources look excellent!

End of GA Review:

Another great article for Azealia! I'll put it on hold until the nominator can look over my suggestions. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all comments, thankyou for reviewing. Azealia911 _talk 16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, definitely a good article. Carbrera (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]