Talk:Got It on Me/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 19:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Taking this article on per your request! --K. Peake 19:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

Change the music video template to be appropriate for the non-single infobox; take "Welcome to Heartbreak" for example
"Pop Smoke, from his posthumous debut studio album," → "Pop Smoke from his posthumous debut studio album,"
Add release year of the album in brackets
"known as Bashar Jackson," → "known as Bashar Jackson, alongside"
Target Curtis Jackson to 50 Cent, but are you sure that the rapper shouldn't be identified by his stage name in prose since that is what he's widely known as, plus he is mentioned as being sampled later in the same para?
"handled the production." → "solely handled the production."
Target samples to Sampling (music)
"of 50 Cent's 2003 single, "Many Men (Wish Death)"." → "of 50 Cent's "Many Men (Wish Death)"."

Not done I think it's fine to mentions that the song was a 2003 single.

Singles are not like albums where the release years are mentioned in the lead of articles referencing them as well as the body; I have fixed this for you. --K. Peake 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the song's use of "Many Men"." → "its usage of "Many Men (Wish Death)"." because song titles should not be abbreviated, as the rule of people's names does not apply to them
"A music video for the song was released" → "An accompanying music video was released"

Background and release

"Pop Smoke's friend, Rah Swish" → "Pop Smoke's friend Rah Swish"
"Pop Smoke told Swish that" → "He told Swish" to avoid overusing his name
"a "hit record"," → "a "hit record,"" for consistency
"that it was going to take him" → "that it would take him"
"was "too strong"." → "was "too strong.""
For consistency, [1] should be invoked every two sentences especially with the large number of them that it is used to back up
"The song's producer, Young Devante" → "The song's producer, Young Devante,"
"made the track's beat" → "made its beat"
"Devante described the song's" → "Young Devante described the song's" since that is not his real name
""Meek Mill-type beat"," → ""Meek Mill-type beat,""
"wanted to work in the future with Pop Smoke." → "wanted to with Pop Smoke in the future." because otherwise it reads confusingly
Target samples to Sampling (music)
"one of several tracks" → "standing as one of several tracks"
"version of "Many Men"." → "sample of the recording."
"scooped-out rap"," → "scooped-out rap,""
"vocal files. And said the song" → "vocal files, while saying the song"
"They were able to found" → "They were able to find"
"sounded much better." → "sounded much better with them."
"was written by Pop Smoke, also known as Bashar Jackson," → "was co-written by Pop Smoke, also known as Bashar Jackson, with"
Remove wikilink on Curtis Jackson and take my earlier comment about his name into consideration
Remove production sentence, as this part is already sourced earlier in the section
"was handled by" → "were both handled by"
"and Sean Solymar were credited" → "and Sean Solymar were credited as"
"were credited as the" → "received credit as the"
Target recording engineers to Audio engineer

Music and lyrics

"for the song with a "dark vibe". And said it is" → "for a "dark vibe" with the song, as well as saying it is"
Wikilink church bells
"He continues, saying the" → "He continued, writing that the"
Target chorus to Refrain
"NME's Dhruva Balram comments that" → "NME's Dhruva Balram commented that" with the wikilink
"in the same breath."" → "in the same breath" on the song"
"from "Many Men":" → "from "Many Men (Wish Death)":"

Reception and promotion

Img looks good
"as "grand", and" → "as "grand," and"
"the song as "chilling"." → "the song as "chilling.""
"it was far from a new joint, he said it was" → "the song was far from a new joint, it felt" to avoid using "it" too much
"to hear "Many Men" on" → "to hear "Many Men (Wish Death)" on"
"It has further peaked at" → "It further peaked at" to avoid using "has", as I said in the previous review

Music video

Even though this should be its own para, a sub-section is not needed because it is the only form of promotion
Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was doing tour performances at the point where you said about performing live; 25?

Sadly, Pop Smoke never got to perform this song live because it was never released when he was alive. He only performed songs from his mixtapes. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink black and white
"stated that the visual" → "stated that the video"

Personnel

Retitle to Credits and personnel
Wikilink and target all of the personnel where possible
programming, associated perfomer, writer → writer, programming, associated performer (that is the correct order)

Charts

Remove the sub-section, as that is not needed when all of the positions are on weekly charts
See MOS:TABLECAPTION

References

Copyvio score looks fine at 35.1%
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
LA Times → Los Angeles Times on ref 5
Target Tidal to Tidal (service) on ref 6
Wikilink AllMusic on ref 7
Target Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 14
Remove ref 15 per WP:RSP, plus it is not needed anyway because ref 14 backs up the Hot 100 position

Final comments and verdict

On hold until the brief issues are fixed; the review was as just quick as I expected, so the fixes shouldn't take long. --K. Peake 08:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of your concerns. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Boss ✓ Pass after only some brief copy editing; your response was a lot better this time around in comparison to the previous review! --K. Peake 10:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]