Jump to content

Talk:I Luv This Shit/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[edit]

Prose: See below Resolved

Sourcing: See below Resolved

Coverage: See below Resolved

Neutrality: No issues

Stability: No issues

GA Result: On hold for seven days Passed

Details

[edit]
Lead
  • The singles chronology for August Alsina is missing in the infobox
Is there any point to that when his next single, "Downtown" has no article on Wikipedia? Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make note of what the "partying" in this track involves Now done
Background and composition
  • First sentence is a bit lengthy. Split it into two sentences so there is one on who wrote it and one on who produced it.
That would give one nearly-as-long sentence and one almost ridiculously short sentence. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, never mind. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify who interviewed Knucklehead
Done. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Spin compare this track to any specific works by The-Dream? If so, I'd specify them.
Unfortunately not. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It later featured" → "It later was featured"
Rewrote in a different way. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Testimony (2014), his first studio album" →"on his debut album Testimony (2014)"
Changed order, but it's technically not his debut studio album as he released an EP in 2013. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • What exactly is a "G-Mix"?
An interesting way to say "remix", I guess...
The new specification is just what it needed, so good work Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma between "the song" and "featuring Birdman"
Rewritten. Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe go into some details on its downloads upon release
Not sure what you mean by this. Adabow (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched Billboard and Yahoo! and can't find any discussion of sales numbers. It didn't hit the Digital Songs chart, so any sales probably aren't huge. Adabow (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • Specify that you are referring to the Billboard Hot 100 (have Billboard linked separately)
Done. Adabow (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more critics' opinions available?
I've found one more. I can't imagine there'd be a tonne of reviews because Alsina wasn't big before this song, and it didn't crossover into pop circles, which is where a lot of the critics lie. Adabow (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music video
  • Section could use expansion, another paragraph on the video's content and/or critics' thoughts on the video would do quite well as one incomplete paragraph isn't very much see below
Live performances
  • One incomplete paragraph doesn't seem like enough- let's try and add some more detail/info
I've merged these last two sections; what do you think? Adabow (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Adabow (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • As a general note, either include known publishers for all refs or none. I see that iTunes has Apple listed as its publisher, and so does Wendy Williams Show, but the rest seem to be missing:
Done all except Spin and Rap-Up, per {{cite news#Publisher}}: "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)." Adabow (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable to leave those ones out, but if doing so then you may as well remove all publishers. As I said: be consistent with inclusion- either all or none. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 22:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The role of the publisher field is to help ascertain reliability of the source, and the current layout does that for those sources. Self-published sources do not need publishers as they are redundant and waste space. For what it's worth, reference formatting isn't in the GA criteria. Adabow (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll just say this: if you take the article to FAC, be prepared for more intense scrutiny over such things- I've seen many instances where people nitpick over ref formatting and such. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Luv_This_Shit/GA1&oldid=612951976"