Jump to content

Talk:Bang (Rita Ora and Imanbek EP)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaof2017: I started review. Comments will be below. Review within 2023 GAN Backlog Drives. Eurohunter (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  1. "by British singer Rita Ora and Kazakh disc jockey Imanbek." - from Imanbek he is a record producer, so which version is correct? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "reached number 16 on the American Billboard Top Dance/Electronic Albums chart" - shouldn't it be "Billboard's Top Dance/Electronic Albums chart"? "Billboard" isn't part of record chart name. The same for section "Reception and promotion". Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Label What a DJ isn't mentioned in the lead. Why? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and composition

[edit]
  1. "it commemorates the moment of having a good time and memories of crazy nights" - is this possible to explain what "crazy nights" mean? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "A billingual song, "Mood"" - what are these languages? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would try to incorporate descriptions of what was said than direct quotes of reviews and same for section "Reception and promotion". Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and promotion

[edit]
  1. "For his website, Thomas Bleach remarked the songs" - is Thomas Bleach notable? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Commercially, Bang reached number 16 on the US Billboard Top Dance/Electronic Albums ranking in the issue dated 27 February 2021." - it charted just one week and from this sentence I would expect a few weeks. Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

[edit]
  1. They are based on Tidal releases but are they the exclusive releases or would it be possible to exchange references to the same releases but to a more open platform? Tidal requires log in to see anything. The other solution is to try to find archived version. Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

[edit]
  1. Only two releases? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is release by What a DJ missing? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. No word about acoustic versions? Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cover could have 316x316 resolution, which is maximal allowed resolution. Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would you upload and add audio sample to infobox? Choose any song, expect "Big". Audio sample for "Big" could be used in article Big (Rita Ora, David Guetta and Imanbek song). Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Replace parameter "Work" or "Publisher" with "Website" in references. Names should be linked to existing articles but not all of them are linked. Eurohunter (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I made some minor fixes. Eurohunter (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @Eurohunter: thank you for the review. I will start addressing the issues within the forthcoming 24 hours, as I am currently on vacation. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iaof2017: there are two items here that have not been crossed off or responded to, "I would try to incorporate descriptions of what..." and "For example, there is no link to Billboard in reference 27...". Are these items you feel that you are looking to address, or do you feel they are not currently actionable/relevant? Best, CMD (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Chipmunkdavis:, I hope you're well. Thank you for your diligence and attention in taking the review. In response to the concerns regarding the two points, I've nominated several articles for GA status in the past and have successfully seen them through the process. While I respect the suggestions, I believe that these specific items might not be necessary. I believe that the article, as it stands, provides a clear and informative description of the subject matter. I have addressed the major points that the previous editor raised and made necessary improvements to the article to ensure its quality. I hope you can understand my perspective and may find the article in its current form appropriate for GA status. However, I appreciate your commitment and thanks again. Best regards! Iaof2017 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

[edit]

This has been listed as requesting a second opinion for about two weeks. What exactly is the query? I will offer assistance if I can. dannymusiceditor oops 03:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DannyMusicEditor, the issue here is that the original reviewer did not complete the review. It has undergone what appears to be a prose review with some inquiries regarding broadness, so perhaps it just needs some source checks and a second overall eye to affirm neutrality and broadness (there is only one media file and it is non-free fair use). CMD (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's a 4-track EP with modest chart placement, I think this is pretty good for coverage considering that fact. Some of these requests are not reasonable as being "required" for passing, in fact. An audio sample is recommended, but not required for GA. The original reviewer has quite a bit of experience working in electronic dance music, which frequently releases singles and EPs in exclusive formats and editions for different nations but does not necessarily translate as common for all music, even pop like Ms. Ora. Reference formatting being consistent is not a GA criterion.
That being said, there are some things that still need fixing. "Billingual" is a typo. I understand the information on the languages is sourced, but agree the language should be provided in Wikipedia's text. Likewise, is "own unique capacity for mainstream appeal" necessary, or can this be prosified? That's really the only one I could see being changed, though.
Finally, two questions of my own. You have a review from Mix1 in critical reception in a review box, but it is not discussed in critical reception. Any source used in critical reception ought to actually be used in a GA's commentary of the project, though I am presuming maybe this is because of language difficulty with German? (nevermind, you live in Germany) Finally, Gunna and Khea should be linked in the tracklists. These are exempt to overlinks the first time they appear in the track listing. dannymusiceditor oops 03:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iaof2017: in case you didn't see this. I see some activity from you since I posted this recommendation and want to make sure you got it. dannymusiceditor oops 00:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DannyMusicEditor: and @Chipmunkdavis: hope you guys are well, I appreciate your efforts in reviewing this article. I fixed the two main points mentioned by DannyMusicEditor. I'm having some difficulty to fully understand the statement about the "sources used in critical reception" section, could you possibly be more specific in your explanation? Thanks Iaof2017 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Iaof2017: That point was just an explanation of why I expected Mix1 to be in the text. If a publication is inside a review box, I'd expect some inclusion of the reference in the prose of critical reception. Is there anything you could glean from the Mix1 source other than the score? I would prefer if something was added from a review standpoint if there's anything suitable, though I have not yet looked at the link myself. Other than that minor point, I would be happy to pass the article in the original reviewer's stead granted their apparent abandonment of the review. Also, I've noticed that "Big" should be linked the first time it appears in the tracklist (again, overlink exempt), and as the track list stands now, Khea appears in different songs dependent on the original or acoustic version of the EP; is this intentional or a mistake? If intentional please ignore me there. dannymusiceditor oops 01:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @DannyMusicEditor: glad to hear from you again. I've addressed the concerns and made the necessary corrections including the matter with Khea. Thanks again :D Iaof2017 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing given original reviewer's abandonment of the review. dannymusiceditor oops 23:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bang_(Rita_Ora_and_Imanbek_EP)/GA1&oldid=1186259611"