Talk:Here We Go... Again/GA1

GA Review

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: AskeeaeWiki (talk · contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PSA (talk · contribs) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Taking. It is nice to be working with you in GAN for the first time. Please give me a moment within the day to finish the review ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay! I was a bit unprepared for this since I made this article some time in February and it definitely would still require a lott of work, thank you though! 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 02:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Quite a few gripes here. See #Prose comments.	On hold
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most are reliable for articles about contemporary music, except for Genius and Musicnotes.com. Please find replacements if there are; otherwise, remove them and the information on the article that you cited from these sources.	On hold
(c) (original research)	Per #Spotchecks, I do not see any issues with OR.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Ran Earwig on the article and found no glaring issues. Highlighted texts are just quotations. However, there are some issues beyond just copyvio; see #Discussion.	On hold

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Definitely far from it. Apart from the talk about Angelina Jolie (the inclusion of which is dubious IMO; see WP:RUMOUR), I see no other critical commentary around the song. No reviews praising it or critiquing it? Check the album reviews and add coverage of the song into the article. Furthermore, information about the music and production could use a little expansion beyond the genre description.	Fail
(b) (focused)	For the most part, I suppose.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
A bit on the fence on the Angelina Jolie coverage, per WP:RUMOUR as said earlier, but there are only two lines in the article that discuss this, so as long as it stays that way I think we're good.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	See my next comment.	On hold
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Not sure about the appropriateness of the single image here. It seems purely decorative. Can we remove this?	On hold

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	I firmly believe it is far from meeting GA status, but convention and good faith tells me this may be fixed within a week. If none of the above issues have been thoroughly fixed, I will regrettably have to fail this.

Discussion

Spotchecks

Refer to this version for the ref numbers.

• 1, close paraphrasing:
  • "Rex hands me a Bullet mic ... and we just start singing. Few days later, Rex says, 'Hey, we played that thing for Abel' — you know, the Weeknd — 'and he really likes it' ... Somehow it floated into his creative ether and he jumped in as a writer." vs
  • "...went to producer Rex Kudo's house, who handed Johnston a microphone, and Johnston then sang with Kudo. A few days later, Kudo played Johnston's vocals for the Weeknd, who liked it, and eventually Johnston came in as a writer for the song."
• 3, no issues found
• 6, no issues found, although you can probably tone down with the quotations
• 7, close paraphrasing issues; the source says "everlasting love" instead of just "love".
  • "The second verse goes to Tyler, who expresses skepticism about the concept of everlasting love" vs.
  • "describing his skepticism of love"
• 8 close paraphrasing issues.
  • "Tyler echoes those thoughts on through his own verse" vs.
  • "simply echoing the Weeknd's thoughts"
• 9, no issues found
• 10, no issues found
• 11, no issues found
• 19, no issues found
• 22, no issues found
• 25 - the year-end chart is cited, when it should be citing the page for the Weeknd's chart history.

Prose comments

Most comments will revolve around grammar and concision.

• "revealed to the Los Angeles Times" -> "told the Los Angeles Times" with Los Angeles Times in italics

 Done

No; the wording is still the same.

• "him and Christian Love" -> "he and Christian Love"

 Done

• "producer Rex Kudo's house" be consistent with the non-use of false titles here

 Done

• "producer Rex Kudo's house, who handed..." -> "producer Rex Kudo's house. Kudo handed" (a house cannot hand someone a microphone)
• "eventually" is not needed

 Done

• "came in as a writer for the song" phrasal verb makes the sentence clunky. perhaps replace with "...for the Weeknd, who liked it; Johnson got writing credits for the song"

 Done

• "sung by Johnston and Christian Love" remove Love's first name

 Done

• "with Tyler, the Creator being revealed" no need for "being"

 Done

• After saying "January 3, 2022", the article should stop listing the years for subsequent dates to avoid redundancy

 Done

• "The title of the song was then revealed alongside the tracklist for Dawn FM" -> "The tracklist, which listed the song, was revealed on January 5, and the album was released on January 7."

 Done

• "The song has been described as a soft rock ballad" if no other source lists a different genre it's safe to replace "has been described as" with "is"

 Done

• "Ken Partridge of Genius described the first verse of the song as the Weeknd singing about his success ... but also has him sing about an ex-lover" -> "On the first verse, the Weeknd sings about his success ... and about an ex-lover"

 Done

• "while the Weeknd claims that he 'loved her right,' and further claims that he made her 'scream like Neve Campbell'." -> split into its own sentence, then rewrite to "He says that not only did he love her, he also made her 'scream like Neve Campbell'.

 Done

• Do not link "scream" to Scream (1996 film) per MOS:EASTEREGG; rather, if you want to keep the link, try finding a source that discusses the reference.

 Done

• "willing to marriage" should be "willing to marry"

 Done

• "being the seventh highest charting track from the album" "being" and "from the album" can be culled

 Done

@AskeeaeWiki, please ping me once you are done with everything. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@AskeeaeWiki, more comments:

I have done some copyediting to correct awkward wording and trim sentences, to save you the time and trouble of having to do it yourself. Please revert some changes if you disagree.

• "what was originally a fling interests him" try not to use "fling" here as that is an unencyclopedic word.
• The "under construction" template is still on top of the page. Are you sure you have exhausted all the sources? There is noticeably still no critical reception. Considering much of the articles that focus on this song specifically are thinkpieces about Angelina Jolie, which clash with our guidelines about spreading rumors, I also am unsure if this should remain an article. Now that will be another discussion to deal with, but to focus on this review: the "broad" criterion remains to be met, since not all main points are covered in the article. Please address this ASAP. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll check for more sources, there are some other articles in the Dawn FM topic which probably shouldn't have articles (Best Friends (The Weeknd song)). 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that expansion of this article is done, and since I think everything has been exhausted, this is good enough for a GAN. Apologies for not getting to this sooner. Will pass ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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.