Talk:Get Him Back!/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: MaranoFan (talk · contribs) 04:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get around to reviewing this over the next couple days! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Generalissima. Thanks for taking this review! How is this going?--N Ø 04:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check

2: Checks out.
8: Yep.
10: This cited three times; I'm not usually one for music reviews so I'm curious how this sort of source is accessed! Not disqualifying if its difficult to, of course.

This is found in the physical CD booklets of an album which also produce song lyrics and the track listing. It is kind of a chore to upload since it has to be hosted by an external image hosting service.

17: Yep.
21a & 21b: I've always found music links a funny way to cite this, but it checks out!
24, 25, 27, 27, 28, 29: All of these descriptors individually check out, but I wonder if there's a better way to describe this; I feel its a stretch to say these sources really describing the song as all of these at once. Maybe "has been variously described as a rap rock, pop rap, or pop-punk song"?

I have been encouraged to go for active voice usually, so I have a preference for the "is a [insert genre] song" phrasing (which can be seen on Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) for example). I don't think there is anything wrong with your suggestion, though, although "variously" could be seen as getting into filler word territory

34a, b, c, d, e, f, g: Check out.
72: Yep.
88: Yup.
97: Checks out.
124 & 125: Check out, but this one sentence section feels clunky to me. Is there a way to incorporate that into another section?

Overall, high-quality sourcing. Nothing seems out of place for this sort of article.

Prose review

Lede is good, except for that aformentioned confusion of a song being 4 genres at the same time.
Background and release is good.
Music and production kinda has a Sea of Blue at the end... maybe we can only include the comparisons that multiple sources mentioned?

imo the quotation marks and commas prevent an SOB issue since they should separate the blue parts for readers and prevent confusion that it's just one big link to the same article. I would worry about cherry-picking comparisons as that could cause a neutrality and/or comprehensiveness issue according to some.

Very well written critical reception section, those are notoriously hard to write and you've pulled it off well. Maybe you could squeeze a couple of the reviewer perspectives together to avoid namedropping so many reviewers, but I'm unsure how this would be done, or if it'd even be possible.

Thank you so much! I did do a lot of clubbing while originally writing this, and kept just those ones separate combining which would be detrimental to readers' understanding imo.

Commercial performance well-written, but I feel the last two sentences that's just a list of where it charted in various countries is slightly redundant when the charts tables are a few sections below that.

The chart tables do produce the entirety of this information but most song FAs put it in prose anyways. In FACs where I have not also included this information in the text, there has usually been pushback.

Music video section good.
Live performance section is good, but maybe an excessive number of quotes? I feel this can be compiled into just a couple sentences about positive reception without naming individual reviewers.

I think the mention of the reviewer names is necessary to demarcate that these are not very widely held opinions but I have just gone ahead and paraphrased out some quotes!

Other

Coverage seems broad, can't really think of anything missing.
Seems neutral, assuming there's not some well of negative criticism somewhere I'm missing :D
Stable for sure.
Images are good and have alt-text.

@MaranoFan: All in all, just seems like a few problems to fix. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the kind words! I believe I have replied to or addressed everything.--N Ø 11:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here! I'm confident this hits GA criteria now. Promoting! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:00, 3 September 2024 (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.