Jump to content

Talk:Ice Cream Truck (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeIce Cream Truck (song) was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
March 1, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 8, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the song "Ice Cream Truck" by Cazwell was originally written for the 2010 film Spork, before it was suggested by his manager that a music video be done for the song?
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ice Cream Truck (song)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Azealia911 (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hello, I'm Azealia911 talk and today I'll be reviewing this nomination.

Lead and infobox

[edit]
  • The cover artwork requires an WP:ALT.
  • Remove '(Deluxe Edition)' and '(Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)', also, is this a single from both? Bearing in mind that if something is a single from an album, it's promoting the album at the same time as the single.
  • "a song by American rapper" → "a song recorded by American rapper"
  • "played on an ice cream truck" → "played by an ice cream truck."
  • "album Watch My Mouth." → "album Watch My Mouth (2009)."

Background and release

[edit]
  • "The songs did not meet with Ghuman’s approval." Reword, something like "Ghuman rejected the songs"

Composition

[edit]
  • Per WP:NFCC #8, unfree content can only be used if it significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The soundclip seems to just have been added as an aesthetic boost and provides no further information, so remove it.

Music video

[edit]
  • WP:NFCC #8 again, the image doesn't add any contextual significance to the article, and this is now the third piece of unfree content you're using in a relatively stubby article. Per, NFCC #3, you should minimalise usage of unfree content.
  • "did a commercial" I think you mean shot, or filmed.

Track listing

[edit]
  • The track listing needs sourcing.
  • Acapella is presented as one word in the source I imagine you got the track lsiting from (here or here?).

References

[edit]
  • Use one style to present dates, you switch between 00-00-00 and MDY.
  • Fix MoS:DASH violations in reference titles.
  • References 3, 11, 12, 14 and 16 are dead.
  • Avoid WP:SHOUTING in reference titles.
[edit]
  • The first external link is dead.
  • The second external link contains a MoS:DASH violation.
  • If you insist on using an accessdate for an external link, please make the style of the date concurrent with that of the references.

Overall

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Sorry, but I'm afraid that there's just too many issues in this article for it to be passed as a good article. Over a quarter of your references are dead and unverifiable, and many of the working links are either unreliable or primary sources. The use of copyrighted material within the article is not justified, and there are sentences that are written poorly "with no music video released by him in a few months", "The songs did not meet with Ghuman’s approval". While I disagreed with the quick fail this article recieved a few days ago, I certainly cannot pass this, it requires significant work, a removal of copyrighted content, and possibly a copy edit. Azealia911 talk 09:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, you're actually right. This article needs a lot more work. I've archived some links so far, but I'm noticing a lot more dead ones as I go along, and I've also been struggling to find articles about a live performance about this song. And yes, the single is for both albums, and I'll be adding a iTunes source about the soundtrack album soon among other improvements I'll be doing, but I'm very busy right now. I appreciate the review and I guess I'll have to take more time before I nominate an article for GA. Hope you're doing well. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]