Talk:Hot Pink (album)/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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:33, 10 February 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

I will review this soon, but hope you can finish your GA review shortly! --K. Peake 09:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

The word studio is not supposed to be used in those listed under the parameter, so remove all usage of the plural in the infobox
Target Sound Factory to The Sound Factory
Pop is not sourced as a genre in the body, only elements of funk are mentioned and [1] saying "mix of pop and rap" does not count as classifying pop-rap as a genre per WP:STICKTOSOURCE
Remove wikilink on studio album
"by Kemosabe." → "by Kemosabe and RCA Records."
Even though it is sourced that the album is a departure from her debut, the dancehall and psychedelic styles are not
"a pop, R&B and funk record containing elements of soul." → "an R&B record containing elements of funk and soul." since pop genre is not backed up, unless you can add a source in the body
"alongside its songwriters and" → "alongside other songwriters and"
"It features production from" → "Production is prominently featured from"
"from music critics for its incorporation of various genres into the album." → "from music critics, being praised for the incorporation of various genres." with the target
Writing about the album's chart positions week to week is too much detail for the lead; only mention the peak and merge that with the sentence about it being certified gold
"Later, the album reached a new peak of number 9 on the chart becoming" → "It peaked at number nine on the US Billboard 200, becoming" per MOS:NUM, with the target
"The album produced seven singles;" → "Hot Pink produced seven singles;" with the target
""Like That" and "Streets", in 2021." → ""Like That", and "Streets", from 2019 to 2021."
"The album features" → "Hot Pink features" and this should be the last sentence of the first para instead
"Tyga and Gucci Mane." → "Tyga, and Gucci Mane."
"by the RIAA." → "in the United States by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)."
- Everything is completed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development

Retitle to Background and conception, with the below section merged
"On October 23, 2019, Doja" → "On October 23, 2019, Doja Cat"
"and said "I" → "and said: "I"
The second sentence is unsourced
"announced the album" → "announced Hot Pink"
"she also revealed" → "Dojo Cat also revealed"
[4] does not back up that it is Gucci Mane who is featured specifically on that song
"Doja stated numerous times" → "Doja Cat stated numerous times"
"her debut album Amala, and always thought" → "her debut studio album Amala (2018), and she thought"
"She also continued," → "Doja Cat continued,"
Wikilink Instagram Live per MOS:LINK2SECT
- Everything is completed, I removed the Gucci Mane statement as, after scouring for sources for a good 15 minutes, I couldn’t find anything related to the announcement. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concept

This should be the third para of the above section, as it is currently a few sentences
"Doja described her album" → "Doja Cat described the album"
Hot Pink should not be in speech marks
"welcoming," she said in a statement. "I think that" → "welcoming", further saying she thinks "that" to make the quoting make more sense
- Merged and completed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 17:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Retitle to Recording and composition, getting rid of the sub-sections but keeping the separate paras
The recording date is not sourced by any of the refs in the first para
Cut the producers listed in this section since it reads like a supermarket list; only mention the ones that are most significant due to number of tracks
Can't you find info about the overcall composition of the album to add as the opening sentence of the second para?
- @Kyle Peake: Could you clarify what you meant by overall composition? Did you want the length, genres, overall themes, etc? D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doggy54321 I was referring to genres mostly, as well as elements if possible. Good to see you joining in this review; where'd your involvement come from? --K. Peake 20:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kyle Peake: That makes sense, I’ll find info like that and add it to the section. My involvement came from VersaceSpace leaving a message on my talk page. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You go do that, interesting to see how the user brought on your involvement and this is not unacceptable interference when it's half and half! --K. Peake 21:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The album opens with" → "Hot Pink opens with"
"she wants to have" → "Doja Cat wants to have"
"A fully rap song" → "A fully rap song in"
"which some reviewers found it" → "which Nerisha Penrose from Elle found to be" with the target
Remove wikilink on emotions
"sampled the 1999 Blink-182 song, "What's My Age Again?", described" → "which samples the 1999 Blink-182 song "What's My Age Again?" and was described" with the target
"pop song by critics," → "pop song by Pitchfork's Lakin Starling," with the targets
[13] does not name the sampled song, only the artist; add the liner notes here too by using a ref name since they identify the recording
"Doja's confidence to" → "Doja Cat's confidence to"
"Doja gives a nod" → "Doja Cat gives a nod"
Wikilink disco
Target R&B to Contemporary R&B
Target hip hop to Hip hop music
"Hot Pink also contains..." none of this sentence is backed up by the source
Target "Juicy" to Juicy (Doja Cat song)
The deluxe edition release is not sourced and remove introduction for Amala and the target
"which features rapper Tyga closed" → "that features rapper Tyga closed"
- All but one completed. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 19:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

Retitle to Release and promotion
"The album's lead single titled "Juicy" featuring Tyga was" → "Hot Pink's lead single, titled "Juicy" and featuring Tyga, was" with the wikilink
Wikilink music video
"becoming her first" → "becoming Doja Cat's first"
"the chart at number 67, following her album release." → "the Hot 100 at number 67, following the album's release."
"was sent to a US Rhythmic radio," → "was sent to US Rhythmic radio," with the target
You should only mention the peak in this sentence, as it is trivial for the album article to go into so much detail about the song's chart performance
Remove the weeks on the chart per above, also none of the Hot 100 info after the first sentence is backed up so add the appropriate source(s)
[19] only mentions it being her first performance on the program
"as well as Canada, UK and" → "including Canada, the United Kingdom, and"
"at number 57," → "at numbers 57,"
Add the appropriate sources for Canada and the United Kingdom
Again, the release for "Juicy" original is unsourced and you do not need a reintroduction to the album, plus wikilink bonus track per MOS:LINK2SECT
"The album's second single titled "Bottom Bitch" was" → "The second single from Hot Pink, titled "Bottom Bitch", was" with the target
Remove the second sentence, as that is mostly repeating comp info that is irrelevant here
"third single titled "Rules" was" → "third single, titled "Rules", was"
The Twitter popularity sentence is unsourced
"The album's fourth single titled "Cyber Sex" was" → "Hot Pink's fourth single, titled "Cyber Sex" was"
"of the album with a" → "of the album, and the former's"
Remove target on "Say So"
"on the record charts in a number of countries." → "on the record charts."
"in late January." → "in late January 2020." but this sentence is not sourced
"The said music video was" → "The music video was"
"The video also featured" → "The video features"
"the latter of which who created" → "the latter of which created"
"was featured in" → "is featured in"
"number one on the Billboard Hot 100," → "number one on the Hot 100,"
"The song also top 10 in several countries," → "The song was a top 10 hit in several other countries,"
"including United Kingdom," → "including the UK,"
All of the top 10 positions need to be sourced, plus remove a number of these countries since so many being listed is like a supermarket list and lacks focus
"New Zealand[36] and" → "New Zealand,[36] and"
"for two Grammy Awards at" → "for two Grammys at" with the target
The above sentence is unsourced
Remove target on "Like That"
Remove introduction and wikilink for Gucci Mane because it has been established who he is
The announced part is not sourced
"was serviced to" → "was serviced to US"
Remove target on Rhythmic
"Top 40 and Urban contemporary radio formats throughout May 2020." → "Top 40, and urban contemporary radio formats in May 2020."
"A corresponding music video" → "An accompanying music video" but this sentence is not sourced
Merge the last para with the fourth, as it is only one sentence long
Remove target on "Streets"
"seventh single from the album" → "seventh single from Hot Pink" but this release is unsourced

Critical reception

Target Tom Hull – on the Web to Tom Hull (critic)
"received generally favorable reviews from music critics." → "was met with generally favorable reviews from music critics." with the target
[47] should not be at the end of the first sentence since the following reviews back it up, plus you state the Metacritic average straight afterwards
Remove website that aggregate reviews of music albums part of the introduction to the site, keeping the rest though
Remove ratings and scores from proses, as they are in the ratings box on the right but keep the info from the reviews
"said "Dlamini's [Doja Cat]" → "said: "Dlamini's [Doja Cat]"
Try to reduce the level of quoting from sources, especially massive amounts like the COS review per WP:QUOTEFARM
The second para is only one review, so I would suggest merging with the third one
Remove Redbrick per WP:RSSM; add the AllMusic or Tom Hull – on the Web review in prose to replace it, or both even
"Lakin Starling of Pitchfork gave the album a score of 7.4 out of 10, noted that Doja's versatility" → "Starling noted that Doja's versatility on the album"
"and unlike her debut album Amala, Hot Pink's" → "and unlike Amala, Hot Pink's"

End year lists

Retitle to Year-end lists and write out in prose, as a table is not needed for three lists

Commercial performance

Remove the first sentence, as you mentioned the release date earlier in the body

Kyle Peake The release date is relevant to the commercial performance because the album was released on a Thursday, allowing no more than 24 hours for the album to sell enough copies to chart. versacespace talk to me 04:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Following the album's release," → "Following the release of Hot Pink,"
Apart from the certification, none of this para is backed up by [55]
"It became her first album to reach the top ten on that chart." → "It became Doja Cat's first album to reach the top 10 on the chart." per MOS:NUM
"the album has been" → "Hot Pink has been"
Gold should not start with capitalisation
Remove wikilink on album-equivalent unit
"in the US." → "in the United States."
[55] should be replaced with the US certification from the table, using a refname
"peaking at number 3," → "peaking at numbers 3,"
Source the peaks in this section by using refnames from the chart table
Too many countries mentioned for top 40 positions; cut down slightly to avoid overkill

Track listing

Why are KoOol kOjAk and tizhimself stylised differently here?
Target Theron Thomas to R. City
Remove target on McKenzie under bonus tracks

Credits and personnel

Retitle to Personnel
Same comment as the previous section regarding KoOol kOjAk and tizhimself

Charts

Weekly charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION
(Eesti Ekspress) → (Eesti Tipp-40)

Year-end charts

See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Certifications

See MOS:TABLECAPTION

Release history

See MOS:TABLECAPTION
Format → Format(s)
Label → Label(s)
The various releases are not backed up by the sources, which only work for one country each

References

Copyvio score looks too high at 50.0% for the COS review; cutting down on quoting like I said will help with this, but it is at 47.1% for the Billboard interview so trim that too
Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
Remove ref 1 since it is useless
Wikilink Instagram on ref 2
Remove wikilink on Instagram for ref 3 and fix MOS:CAPS as well as MOS:QWQ issues, but the album title can stay in caps
Use the cite tweet template for ref 4
Target Elle to Elle (magazine) on ref 5
Target Billboard to Billboard (magazine) on ref 6
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 7 and cite Exclaim! instead
Cite Tidal as publisher instead for refs 8 and 61
Wikilink USA Today on ref 9
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 10 and cite Idolator as the website with the target
Wikilink Consequence of Sound on ref 11
Cite Elle as website for ref 12
Remove or replace ref 14 per WP:RSSM
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with refs 15, 17, 19 24
Remove target on Billboard for refs 16 and 77
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 22 and remove wikilink on Exclaim!
Wikilink Los Angeles Times on ref 23
Cite Uproxx as publisher for ref 25 with the wikilink
Cite V101.9 as publisher instead for ref 26
Remove or replace ref 27 per WP:RSP
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 28 and target Nylon to Nylon (magazine)
Buzzfeed → Buzzfeed News on ref 29 with the wikilink
Change ref 32's URL or cite an archive that displays the peak position
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 33 and 35
Cite Recording Industry Association of Malaysia solely as publisher instead for ref 34 with the wikilink
WP:OVERLINK of Recorded Music NZ on ref 36
Refs 37, 38 and 39 are not formatted correctly; you need the original URL, archive, title and publisher (All Access for each of them)
Remove ref 40 since Album of the Year was deemed unreliable during a discussion months ago
Cite Metacritic as publisher instead for ref 41 with the wikilink
Cite AllMusic as publisher instead for ref 42 and remove from the title
Remove Clash Magazine from the title of ref 43
Remove wikilink on Consequence of Sound for ref 44
Ref 47 is a duplicate of ref 41
Ref 48 is a duplicate of ref 45
Ref 49 is a duplicate of ref 44
Ref 50 is a duplicate of ref 43
Ref 51 should add a title, plus cite Vibe as the website with the target
nme → NME on ref 52, plus fix the same issue with the ref title
Target Complex to Complex (magazine) on ref 53 per MOS:LINK2SECT
Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 54 and WP:OVERLINK of The Fader
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 56 and WP:OVERLINK of Eesti Ekspress
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with ref 57 and WP:OVERLINK of AGATA
Target Sony Music Japan to Sony Music Entertainment Japan on ref 62
Use the various citations template for refs 93 and 94; see "All Day" for example, plus cite iTunes Store and Amazon.com as publishers instead

Final comments and verdict

On hold until all of the issues are fixed; the article does have a lot of them to be fair, but I am hoping you can get the fixes done in a good amount of time! --K. Peake 21:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a certain time frame in which this needs to be done? Kyle Peake, versacespace talk to me 18:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VersaceSpace, there is no set time frame after which the review is required to close, but one week afterwards is ideal so try to complete everything by 17 February. Also, I suggest giving a read through of the changes more than once to verify you have done them. --K. Peake 18:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to comment on this review, but I have some concerns that this article may not be broad in its coverage. For example, the "Recording and composition" section is lacking and only discusses six of the album's sixteen songs. Also, important information (like the Grammy nominations and sales figures) is completely unsourced in some areas, are. The article formerly contained a lot more prose (see [1]), but after I pointed out that a lot of the content was unsourced, it was removed entirely rather than adding the necessary sources. I'm sure the information exists out there – Hot Pink was one of the best performing albums of 2020. The decision is entirely up to you as reviewer, but I suggest failing this review as the article does not meet criteria #2c and #3a of the good article criteria. Carbrera (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Carbrera I did point out the original research during this review and I agree with the issues arisen, but can't this remain onhold rather than failed since the users are in the process of making fixes like these? --K. Peake 21:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kyle Peake:, I'm not sure I'm understanding what to do with the table captions. versacespace talk to me 04:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace: See Jesus Is King as an example of how to add appropriate captions for chart tables. --K. Peake 07:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VersaceSpace: The issues that both me and Carbrera pointed out about original research are still existent, as well as the lack of comp info for the album tracks. Do you think you will be able to fix these problems, or should I just fail the article? --K. Peake 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to your earlier ping. You can most definitely keep this review on hold for as long as you find acceptable, as you are the reviewer. Personally, I do not think all of these issues could be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. If you are unsure as well, you could request a second opinion from a different GA reviewer if you'd like. I'd love to see another album article earn the GA stamp, but I think this nomination was premature. Carbrera (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

VersaceSpace and Carbrera, I am going to ✗ Fail this article now because it is simply too far from being broad in its coverage despite having been on hold for nearly a month with suggestions for improvement. --K. Peake 07:05, 8 March 2021 (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.