Talk:Ice Princess (song)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this nomination.
- Review
- You use "song" six times in the first paragraph of the lead alone. You can use 'it', 'the track', or even 'Ice Princess' itself for the sake of variety.
- Why is there a citation for the release date in the lead?
- The song was released as the fourth single → It was released as the fourth single
- with writing coming from → while it was written by
- slow tempo → Not down tempo?
- a booming, static bass. → This sounds like a quote?
- Done: Removed, I can't find anything about it online, probably something I copied from a blog/social media post describing the song.
- a sample → Link sample
- the song hears → Wrong choice of word
- as Banks "spitting knotty rhymes about her diamonds"[4] → There's no full stop here.
- "Ice Princess" garnered praise from music critics. → Saying?
- colorful, turning → colorful while turning
- largely due to the song's video release. → Is this you assuming?
- I'd personally say it was a reach to cite WP:OR, all's I did was add two and two together. Billboard even tweeted a separate chart, and the icon for the song is a snap of the music video, but if you do feel like it's OR and unacceptable for a GA, I can remove it.
- It's just that it's something we can't truly source or know as the reason for being why it charted, unless there is a specific article. For instance, we know Madonna's "Bitch I'm Madonna" made an entry on the Hot 100 because of the video, it was reported. — Calvin999 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Had a little troll around the internet and can't seem to find it, removed. Azealia911 talk
- It's just that it's something we can't truly source or know as the reason for being why it charted, unless there is a specific article. For instance, we know Madonna's "Bitch I'm Madonna" made an entry on the Hot 100 because of the video, it was reported. — Calvin999 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'd personally say it was a reach to cite WP:OR, all's I did was add two and two together. Billboard even tweeted a separate chart, and the icon for the song is a snap of the music video, but if you do feel like it's OR and unacceptable for a GA, I can remove it.
- to a particular record label → Remove 'particular'
- on her album, and a month later, she announced the title of the album → Repetition of 'album'
- Approximately a year later, she handed a complete album in to the labels. Banks initially thought that the album would receive favorable reception from the labels; however, the representatives told Banks that she had not recorded a "hit" single for the album. → Which continues in this sentence, too.
- Upon its release, → Remove, it wouldn't be before.
- Music video section should just be one paragraph like the ones above.
- Track listing is redundant because there's only one version. You would only use a section like this to show B-sides, remixes or alternative versions.
- I'd rename Music video section as Promotion and include the one sentence about one live performance in with that section instead.
- References wise: Pitchfork is Pitchfork Media; ref 10 says this but should be unlinked as it is the second mention; same for 14 and 15 as they are the second mentions too.
Thankyou for the review, I appreciate it, anything I've not replied to has been addressed. Azealia911 talk 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Outcome
On hold for 7 days. — Calvin999 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Everything has been addressed. Passing — Calvin999 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)