Talk:Cherry on Top (Bini song)/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 10:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Grammar and spelling is well so far. Writing style is nearing encyclopedic tone.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~Agnez Mo remix is repetitive.~~ Will put this on hold while some parts are being reviewed for expansion.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~Some sources direct to YouTube (some even primary). Use a news source.~~ ~~Two sources refer to Spotify, which falls under a primary source~~ Done!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~One source that refer to YouTube (a July 10 teaser) may be replaced with a news website.~~ ~~See 2a and 2c.~~ Done!
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citations provided and are WP:RS.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Seems no violation so far.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The content itself does provide relevant info about the song. However, more info can be added about the song's details and context/background
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Parts of the article can be expanded. For instance, "Lyrics" can be an addition. (A song review sentence describing the lyrics from a WP:RS is included in /* Composition and lyrics */. No WP:RS analyzes the lyrics, so a paragraph on the lyrics might not be necessary. Will wait for another comment.)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	~~"...amid significant fan anticipation." might not need WP:NPOV~~ Done!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war or dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No violation and properly attributed, correct me if I overlooked
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~You may add subtitles (lyrics) to the audio sample.~~ Done!
	7. Overall assessment.	Some improvement points still needed, will wait for another reviewer.

First time reviewer here, so you can protest what I wrote. Will lean more to a peer review. Some of the first GA nomination feedback weren't still done. Some feedback I'd like to highlight rather than repeat their points:

The Background and info on the Recording can be expanded. The single sentence would be inadequate for a reader with no prior knowledge on Bini.
Details about the lyrics would be a good addition.
~~The table and sentence in the Agnes Mo remix is repetitive. Prose may be a better option.~~Done!
~~The Portugese reference (and any foreign-language one) would need a translation.~~Done! Check MOS:REFLINK for wikilinking in the reflist.

If there's any misunderstanding I made (I'm sure there are), please inform me. It's my first time to do so. RFNirmala (talk) 10:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RFNirmala! I appreciate you reviewing this GAN. However, I want to notify you that the nominator, @Royiswariii, has been blocked on October 29, 2024, and cannot respond to this review nor edit the article. The details of their block can be viewed here. They can still reply on their talk page, so you can communicate with them there. Best regards, AstrooKai (Talk) 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai: that's incredibly unfortunate. With the nominator blocked, it's very likely that this should be quickfailed; cc @RFNirmala Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's someone willing to take over the nom though, that would be better. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 11:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to address or take over on this nomination since I'm one of the active contributors on this article, though it is up to @Royiswariii (the nominator) to decide if they would allow me. I guess that can be asked via their talk page since they're still reachable through there. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai In enwiki processes like GAN where timeliness is of utmost importance, I doubt you will need permission; no one owns an article after all, and anyone is free to improve them. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will try to address the issues highlighted in this review to the best of my ability and in a timely manner, as I am also dealing with some real-life matters on the side. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @RFNirmala. I have removed the table and the infobox in the remix section and added an English translation for the Portuguese article title. I will try to address the others later once I have available time. May I also invite some of the significant contributors to this article, @Acrom12 (article creator), @Freedom Wall, and @Borgenland, to help improve this article when they have time? AstrooKai (Talk) 02:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai Thanks! Nice one. Some reviewers might look for more content (e.g. the lyrics), but for me, the article's scope is good as is. RFNirmala (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of lyrics, there are no reliable sources that discuss the song's lyrics and meaning. While this is a good addition to the article, there are no available references to support it. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai Sure, I'll take a look and see what I can help with. Freedom Wall (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Feel free to ask if you need anything. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wall! About the remix, would it be more appropriate or feasible to put it under an "Agnez Mo remix" subsection in Cherry on Top (Bini song) § Promotion and release? Because in the chronology section of the song's main infobox, "Cherry on Top (BiniMo Remix)" is linked to a now-removed section, the remix section. Creating the subsection would allow for a better linking of the song in the chronology section. An anchor may also be an option if this is not feasible; what do you think? AstrooKai (Talk) 07:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just saw this now. I don't think the remix is notable enough to have a sub-section unless it gains significant traction. Most don't. I also removed the remix from the chronology section. From what I've noticed, remixes aren't really considered new singles in the first place. Freedom Wall (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for correcting it! AstrooKai (Talk) 16:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I expounded on the context in the Background section and added a short blurb about the lyrics to the Composition (now renamed to Composition and lyrics) section. I'm not sure what else to add since we're lacking new sources, but feel free to let me know if you need anything else! Freedom Wall (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Wall! I appreciate your big help. I'll let you know if anything else is needed. AstrooKai (Talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai and all editors subscribed, I updated the table. As a peer reviewer, I think this is nearly ready to be a GA! But, this is my first GAN review, so let's wait for another reviewer.

I also recommend adding web archives to every reference. I ran the article through IABot, so we'll have to spot-check the references and archive links.
The article's scope is generally satisfactory. The lone sentence in /* Background */ may be merged, but I find no problem in leaving it.
~~I suggest putting /* Music Video */ beside /* Composition and lyrics */.~~ Did WP:BOLD
I have another main issue: refs 24 and 26 use Spotify as a reference. Ref24, which is about the single pack, ha no WP:RS coverage, from my Google searching. I suggest removing it, since they're just tempo changes. On the other hand, ref26 and even its archive doesn't verify the claim. It just leads me to a homepage. Please search a WP:RS.

Still, good job on expanding and revising the content and keep it up! Sorry for being quite inactive, I was busy in academics, but I can still continue editing, don't worry. RFNirmala (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have removed refs. 24 and 26 as you suggested since there are no WP:SECONDARY sources that can corroborate them. For the lone sentence in the Background, I guess it has been separated since it differs from the topic that the first paragraph covers, which is the success of Talaarawan. AstrooKai (Talk) 04:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

@RFNirmala: I want to quickly draw attention to criteria #6, that media are tagged with valid non-free use rationales. Per WP:SAMPLE, a non-free audio file can only be 10% of the song's original length at most; thus, a song with a length of 2:55 can only have an audio sample of 17.5 seconds. The current one is 28 seconds long, which is better than the previous 40-second cut but still not good enough. I had already brought this to Royiswariii's attention back during their first nomination of this page, but it appears that it has gone unresolved and should be cleared up first. Leafy46 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Leafy46. I have addressed this issue and uploaded a new version of the sample, a 12-second cut, which should be in compliance with WP:SAMPLE. In addition, I have updated the file's non-free use rationale to be more informative. If anything else needs to be fixed in the file, please let me know. AstrooKai (Talk) 00:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstrooKai: Looks good to me! I know that at the FA level there tends to be a greater level of explanation required for including an audio sample, but this looks just fine for the GA level. Leafy46 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AstrooKai!

Sorry for not responding due to my blocked reason but i'm now unblocked. Is there anything to fix it to pass on GA? Thanks. Royiswariii Talk! 02:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Royiswariii! I'm glad to know that you're finally unblocked. For the article's GAN, you can check the Nugget's feedback from the article's first GAN and see if their suggestions can be implemented. @RFNirmala also listed above the things that still needs to be accomplished. If you need help on anything, feel free to let me know. AstrooKai (Talk) 05:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 2c are passed? I'm confused if its passed or not Royiswariii Talk! 06:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed 2c in revisions 1255880349 and 1255882809, the table is just not updated. I think 3b still needs attention. Wall added some brief details about the song's lyrics but still needs more information. However, as Wall mentioned, there are not enough sources that dig into the lyrics of the song. But you can try and see if there is some information from reliable sources available for this that we overlooked. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Royiswariii! 2c is now resolved since the Spotify references are now removed. Still, I saw the archive links on Philippine Daily Inquirer weren't working, such as this. Edited the table, and most of the points are on-check. The rest can be passed if another reviewer agrees. I find this ready to be GA. But, I will wait for another reviewer to agree with my GA review. RFNirmala (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @RFNirmala. Sorry for intruding on this particular problem. I replaced the broken archive with https://archive.md/9wm7h from archive.today. I tried re-archiving the source earlier but it still archives it incorrectly (bunch of gibberish codes), so I used archive.today as a replacement. This can be replaced back with an archive from archive.org once it correctly archives the source. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Other Philippine Daily Inquirer sources still have the gibberish code. Using archive.today is okay; I can help in replacing it with archive.org days later (or when it's now resolved) RFNirmala (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Only the Philippine Daily Inquirer sources do that? That's strange. Let me fix them. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it. These archives worked properly before. I don't know why they started to become like this. Should I proceed with replacing them all? They might be just some issues on Internet Archive's end and may be fixed later. It would be a tedious task if it were reverted back to IA after being fixed. AstrooKai (Talk) 14:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. You don't need to replace them. There's no disadvantage in using archive.today - I could get to it some time after, but no need for others and you to revert back to IA. RFNirmala (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]