Talk:Hot to Go!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hot to Go! article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hot to Go! has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2024.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

College students are not music critics

College students are not professional music critics. They are college kids trying to get extra credit by writing for their student newspapers. I don't see why these opinions are any better than any random Internet blogger's opinion—some editors suggest that we should include them because they (usually) have editors checking their work. So? They're not music publications and not music critics. I have removed the paragraph of college kids weighing in on the song, and if reinstated, I am making it clear I will actively oppose the article becoming a GA with their irrelevant opinions included. Ss112 04:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I'm concerned about the use of college newspapers as sources on the rest of the article too but less so than including their opinions. Ss112 05:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Fair enough. I was debating on whether or not if I should have even included them when I opted to take this on. I said yes initially because I felt initially they held some sort of value; but I do realize now that don't help too much. As for the others: I'll try to find something else if I can. Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 06:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hot to Go!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Elephantranges (talk · contribs) 22:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll take a crack at reviewing this one; this is my first time doing a GA review so please bear with me, thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges: Hey! Thank you for taking this one on. Greatly appreciated. And don't worry- feel free to take as much time as you need. Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far in terms of the basics (no edit warring, no bias, grammar is fine, etc.) it looks good, I'll take a closer look tomorrow to examine the references and such.

One addition I would suggest would be a dedicated section covering the commercial performance of the song. This would be especially useful in the case of this song, as you could more thoroughly explain its status as a sleeper hit and its progress regarding chart positions, streaming numbers, etc. Elephantranges (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges:

Done. Let me know if you need anything else added. Cheers, mate! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I've cleared it for number 3 as I think you've got all the major aspects covered, and it doesn't seem like it goes off-topic at any points. Elephantranges (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges: Hey! You think you could wrap up the review today? Would be great if you can. Thank you! Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 16:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've been busy and forgot. But yes I can finish right now! Elephantranges (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck complete, no OR, everything looks good! Passing Elephantranges (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephantranges: Thank you! I think you might've not fully closed the review, however. Haven't received a notification about it yet. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 21:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be good now, I'll check back in a little bit to make sure, though. Thanks for your patience! Elephantranges (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·