Talk:Camila (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 08:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my GA review for this article.--N Ø 08:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top and infobox

Why is there a source only for Skrillex being a producer in the infobox?
No other issues with the infobox
"The project was originally titled The Hurting. The Healing. The Loving., with Cabello's debut solo single 'Crying in the Club' intended as the lead single." -- I don't really agree with this assessment. As "Crying in the Club", "I Have Questions" etc. were scrapped, it would be more valid to assume that THTHTL was scrapped altogether. This article pretends they're the same album by claiming that she "retitled" it
"'Havana' served as its official lead single due to the rising success of the song". -- This is yet another assumption. And terms like "rising succcess of the song" are WP:WEASEL wording unless attributed to a critic.
"'Havana' became an international success" -- According to whom? WP:OR
"Camila was met with generally positive reviews from contemporary music critics" -- This sentence is off grammatically. It can either "meet positive reception" or "receive positive reviews"; not "meet positive reviews"
"'Never Be the Same' was released as a promotional single in December 2017, and was officially serviced for radio airplay the following January as the album's second single" -- Um, according to whom lol? Radio airplay is not a compulsion for single releases. Never Be the Same was always a single, accompanied by Real Friends which was only a promotional single. NBTS had its own single cover and was intended as a single since the day it was released.
"released to contemporary hit radio as the album's final single in October 9, 2018" -- Another grammatically off sentence. -- Something can be released "on" a date or "in" a month; but not "in" a day.
Unlink Never Be The Same Tour as it redirects back here.

Background

There's no need to flex about her/5H's chart peaks and certifications. That has nothing do with a section called background. ("and achieved further success with the US top-ten single"; "both of which earned gold certifications in the United States")
A random collaboration like "Bad Things" does not need so much weightage in this section.
"media speculation" -- Exclude baseless rumors from the article.
"I am less focused on success and more on doing my best and pursuing my artistic vision to the fullest" -- This quote makes it even more controversial that you suggest she chose "Havana" as the lead single purely because of its success earlier.
"The song was a hit in several European territories, most notably the United Kingdom and France" -- According to whom, you? This is another detail completely irrelevant to the "Background" section. It's also subjective, what you consider a hit someone else may consider a flop.

Recording and development

"Initial recording sessions saw Camila working with a number of well known producers and writers" -- According to whom? Another subjective way of description.
Also please refrain from vicariously praising Cabello through these writers and producers when it doesn't really have anything to do with the recording and development of this album. The Ed Sheeran bit can be completely removed as there's no proof Cabello ever intended to put his song on the album.
"the albums track list -> "the album's track list"
"Cabello additionally confirmed a song titled 'Sangria Wine'", "Production duo Stargate produced 'OMG'" -- Again, why are we talking about so many songs that didn't make the album? I understand giving brief mentions to CITC and IHQ as they were intended for her debut album, but these random collaborations should not be mentioned anywhere outside maybe the background section.
"rumors began to circulate of a song titled 'A Good Reason to Go' that was set to be released as her lead single" -- We. don't. cover. rumors. on. good. articles.
Unlink "Scar Tissue"
In conclusion, most of this section is unnecessary and has little to do with the final album.

Music and lyrics

"A NME writer" --> "An NME writer"
"It was the album's third and final single on October 9, 2018." -- Kind of irrelevant to a section called "music and lyrics" don't you think?
"'Inside Out' is a 'reggaeton tune that features a bouncy and danceable melody.' -- Attribute this to the critic that wrote the review.
"Somethings Gotta Give" -- Missing an apostrophe there
There's a citation needed tag...

Release and artwork

You're reiterating the whole The Hurting. The Healing. The Loving. thing for the third time in this section.
"She described the project as 'the story of my journey from darkness into light, from a time when I was lost to a time when I found myself again.'[32] She wrote, 'It was a kind of chapter you never want to read out loud',[84] and explained the 'whole album-making process' helped her deal with her emotions" -- Yawn. What does this have to do with the release and artwork?
"it was rumored that the album's title would be changed as well" -- Again with the rumors...
"She revealed the album artwork on her personal Instagram account" -- Does she have a different "public" Instagram account too?
"It additionally features a message to Cabello's fans, stating 'This album saw me enter the room shattered, and nervous, and insecure, and it's seen me come to life, bright-eyed, and ready for anything. So, in other words..... you have my heart in your hands." -- Irrelevant to this section and would only interest Cabello fans.

Other sections

The "Awards" table is a WP:CFORK of List of awards and nominations received by Camila Cabello. Remove it.
Consensus seems to exist on the talk page for Never Be the Same Tour to be made into its own article but no one bothered to do it?

References

Out of all the messy things about this article, the worst have got to be the references. So many of them are missing accessdates. Cabello's twitter and Instagram have been used as a source way too many times. "Rap-Up Staff", "PopCrush Staff", "EW Staff" are not actual authors, remove them. PopCrush is listed at WP:ALBUMAVOID, remove it asap. There's also other horribly unreliable sources like Headline Planet, Daily Mail and The Sun.

Verdict

Well written:
Verifiable with no original research:
Broad in its coverage: (highly fails the criteria "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"
Neutral:
Stable:
Illustrated: (Iffy but somewhat)

Conclusion:

This article clearly fails the first four criteria. Suggest taking it to WP:GOCE and having it looked over by someone whose first language is English and who can write neutrally.--N Ø 08:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]