Talk:Lil Uzi Vert/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll start this sometime next week. I used to like this guy, still occasionally give him a listen.

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed.)

Lead

We'll get to this after I review the rest. Better I know what's inside and can substantiate afterwards. All I have right now is that maybe you should pipe "known professionally as" to stage name.

• Could you find some sources that explicitly confirm that they are often simply referred to as "Uzi"? It might be preferable to their surname if you can find such support, though I am skeptical that material that clears such a bar exists.
• References, save for the most exceptional cases, should never be in the lead of a GA. Support all of this information in the body of the article.
• At the end of the lead, you should mention that they have been teasing their upcoming album, The Pink Tape, since late 2020.

Early life

• First source does not mention a birthdate, though his neighborhood checks out. I would much prefer a better source than this Youtube video, but they're verified and the information I believe qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think I can let this go.
• Note the year Jones' debut (2005) and Mechanical Animals (1998) were released.
• The second line is good information, but could be merged into career beginnings. It seems out of place with the rest of the way that section is structured.
  • Addendum after the original notes: on second look, I don't like how the first sentence of the second paragraph is written. It runs on too long. I recommend Woods began rapping in tenth grade after hearing classmate William Aston freestyle over a remade Chris Brown instrumental. Woods referred to themself at that point in their life as a "regular kid, I didn't really wanna rap".[8] Even still, I really do recommend merging this into the first part of career beginnings, I think it flows way better and redundancies can be reduced.
  • You don't need to link Marilyn Manson twice either.

Career beginnings

• "They later changed this name to Lil Uzi Vert,"...better way to end this sentence: inspired by the way someone described their rap flow as "Fast, like a machine gun." I am not particularly well-versed in hip hop, but I'm not sure "flow" in this context is properly encyclopedic. I don't know what to say instead though so I'll live with it.
• Link cloud rap
• In the future, please run IAbot to fix dead links when nominating for GA. I notice Highsnobiety is a dead link when I went to verify the information about "White Shit". I ran it for you this time.
  • Upon further inspection, this link is permanently dead and no archives are available. This information must be cited to another source or removed. Part of this should be fairly simple, but the attributed opinion of "features Woods with a bigger focus on lyricism than most of their career" will likely have to go because I imagine it would be hard to find another publication which expressed that opinion on this work.
• Did Uzi literally make a song about Dej Loaf? I was going to ask why it had quotemarks around it, but maybe I just didn't know that. If in fact they did, the quotemarks do in fact belong there.
• Cut the "such as" when talking about the features on Luv is Rage. Those two are the only features on the project, "such as" implies there are more.

Sorry for lagging behind on all this. I'm going to do better to finish this at a much quicker pace.

Breakthrough

Alright, I'm finishing this article this weekend and maybe never doing another review like this. I'm always too tired when I come home from my new job, or I'm elsewhere from my computer. dannymusiceditor ^oops 22:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a fan of how this section was written. All simple fixes, but surprisingly many spots can be improved. I'm gonna group problems sentence by sentence.

• Avoid stylizations such as A$AP Mob when said artist is not the main subject of the article. Nor does it need linked; it was already done at the end of the previous section.
  • No need for the Vents source there either; HotNewHipHop probably supersedes it in reliability already and does the job fine.
• Not sure how I feel about using a pronoun instead of a name in the second sentence; not disrespecting pronouns, I think of it as a clarity issue which could accidentally reference ASAP from the previous sentence. A comma after "single" is not necessary.
• Not everyone is familiar with SXSW, or even by its full name, South by Southwest. I shouldn't have to Google that, give its full name... wait, what? A riot? I don't think it's sufficient to mention that in passing; more context is needed, but be careful not to add too much. Woods' set (apostrophe) is also missing and currently does not read in the possessive like it should.
• I think you mean it Woods' and not "its Woods".
• Gold is not a proper noun, contrary to popular belief.
• For the 'freshmen cypher' to be relevant, you'll need to define for me what that is.
  • Related to that, YouTube views are not notable unless they are noted by a secondary source. I would cut that part about the view stats entirely.
• Multi-platinum certifications in quantities below five should be referred to in transitives (i.e. double, in this case)
• One sentence needs rearranged and then split into a new sentence. Instead of "...Woods released the video for the single "Money Longer" which debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 the following week, their first entry on the chart, at number 92 on July 2, 2016," let's try Woods released the video for "Money Longer".[1] The single debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 the following week at number 92, their first entry on the chart.[existing source] (I don't think the peak dates for these positions are relevant for Woods' article, definitely the songs themselves. Rap fans take this too seriously. Not like Uzi pulled a Juice Wrld and landed five [I think?] top ten Hot 100 hits in one week.)
• Same thing with the peak date goes for "You Was Right". Needs a re-write too, more I think about it: "Another single from Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World, Metro Boomin [...] became Woods second entry on the chart, debuting at number 89 and peaking at number 40."
• Again with the certification as a proper noun.
• Does this mixtape with Gucci Mane have a name?
• Scrap "On the 27th," in favor of "Four days later,"

To recap: your information is great, and generally the sourcing is very solid. The writing needs polishing, and in one case a tiny bit of fleshing out, but generally good work. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Luv Is Rage 2

• Saying "as both" on Bad and Boujee needlessly complicates things, say "overall" instead.
• Comma after nerdy nature, and Kingdom Hearts and Steven Universe should be italicized.
• Put a period after the Weeknd tour.
• The following week from when? I'd scrap the timing of the release, and just say it was subsequently released to an effect similar to the way you have it already.
• "biggest song" is too informal and, strictly speaking, subjective without proper attribution (the RIAA alone is insufficient for that assertion); I'd cut that part and stick to the highest-charting.
• Delayed again? When was it originally announced for release? This is the first time the album was even mentioned by name; when was this project initially announced? For release?
• "but confirmed", not "and confirmed"
• Choose either "Woods" or "Uzi" to refer to them throughout the article, pick one. I would prefer their surname. "Woke Up Like This" should be written as "Wokeuplikethis", this is an acceptable stylization.
• Move "Woke Up Like This" was eventually certified platinum and peaked at number 76 on the Billboard Hot 100. to the end of the previous paragraph and source it.

Continuing...

• Change Uzi to Woods, and cut "ASAP rappers collective" and delink ASAP Mob here.
• Hip hop doesn't need a hyphen.
• After you talk about the surprise release at midnight, there's some repeated information that you can just cut all of.
• The entire next mini-paragraph should be merged onto the end of the previous one.
  • The second sentence of said mini-paragraph contradicts itself: there are ten singles, but then there are two that became singles. What actually happened is that ten songs charted, but two became singles.
• Last part of the following paragraph: the Nav collaboration needs referencing. I know it exists, but its date of release especially needs a reference.
• Is Nicki's nationality really necessary? What value is there in mentioning that?
• No reference for the peak of The Way Life Goes.
• Watch your punctuation. Missing one after the Colbert performance. Immediately after that, you refer to them as Uzi.
• There's no mention of Uzi's collaboration with Juice Wrld on "Wasted", which was released in this album's era. This one is much more notable than several of the features already present in the article.

Section done. Lots of this stuff could have been easily noticed before I reviewed, but they're all easy fixes. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Eternal Atake, Lil Uzi Vert vs. The World 2, and Pluto x Baby Pluto

This section is written a little all over the place.

• The first two paragraphs should be merged. By sentence, here's what I have to comment about the unified paragraph:
  • Inconsistent use of surname and stage name. Goes for the first two. Should be the surname. This applies here and everywhere else it appears in the section.
  • Don't use rap slang like "dropping" when a Wikipedia article. Instead, use "would be released". Put a comma before the reference of this confirmation.
  • As it currently stands right now, in separate paragraphs, the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second are redundant information. Cut that opening sentence to the second paragraph before you merge so you don't get confused.
• Paragraphs three and four, as they currently stand, also need merged.
  • Move reference 90 to the end of its sentence. It covers the information there, which needs a source.
  • After that, actually that paragraph is just fine.
• Don't numeralize "number 1", it's "number one". (Yes, I made up the word "numeralize". But I think it's pretty clear what it means.)
• Not "got" X amount of streams, how about "garnered"? "Got" is lazy wording here.
• Expand on the reference behind "Sasuke". Should be easy, it's in the reference provided. (It references the character from Naruto.)
• StaySolidRocky's remix which includes Uzi, I believe, is not notable enough for inclusion in their biographical history of their career. Though it was released as a single, it was neither a particularly successful venture, nor was it the original version released as a single. I'd ask that you cut it from the text.
• Move the reference for Patek and Over Your Head to the end of the sentence.
• Change 4 to four. Generally, numbers below 11 should be written as full words and not numerals.

The Pink Tape

• Once again with the names.
• Not just "Instagram live", but "Instagram live videos".
• "Awhich"? Silly typo
  • Wait, this shouldn't be the first mention of The Pink Tape. When was the title first announced? Chronologically, that announcement should come before any mention of Demon High.
• The 2 Alive features I argue are not relevant enough for inclusion; first of all, they're both bonus tracks, and second, neither of them were particularly successful on their own. Cut them out.
• The whole second paragraph of this section is written very well, but lacks something the whole rest of the article did very well with: references. I know they're easily fetchable for this section, so please do so.
  • Well, except the other Yeat collaboration (which should be cut entirely) and the minor part about "rollout" being too slang-y for Wikipedia, and probably should change to "release".

Musical style

• Remember that part about Mechanical Animals being Uzi's favorite Manson album? Yeah, on second thought, you should mention that down here instead of all the way up there.
• There is no mention of Uzi's supposed (but real, we all know it) "melodic approach to trap" that is mentioned and sourced in the lead. It should be brought down here and fleshed out.
• You do not need to list every collaboration Uzi has with their influences. None of them are notable; if any of them should be kept, maybe retain Pharrell's collab on Neon Guts, as that at least was a song which appeared on one of Uzi's own projects.
• I can tell that some decent effort has been put into this section, and I think it can definitely be better, but I couldn't be the one who does it. It's passable, I suppose? My recommendation would be to extract some information from their album articles to help expand this section.

Personal life

• Who actually cares that Uzi is allergic to chocolate?
• You should talk about Lil Peep and XXX in the same paragraph; merge the two.
• Does Uzi still promote Satanism? How old is this statement? Perhaps an "at one point" is warranted, but I am not sure; I am only concerned that the sentence uses the present tense.
• Move reference 159 (the paintball incident) to the end of the stanza.
• No issues in the remaining sections.

Conclusion

@Célestin Denis: Not bad, but you've got some work cut out for you. A less gracious reviewer might have failed this, but since I believe that all the fixes recommended are simple and just a long list of small parts, and this is your first GA attempt, I will allow you some time to fix them. It's only fair, considering how long I let this review sit and collect dust. To start, I am placing this article's review on hold for 14 days. If you have questions, please ask; if you need extra time to finish, please let me know before then. I want to see this pass. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been really busy with my job and my personal music career and haven't had time to work in the article in the past 2 weeks. I will work on it tomorrow and hopefully finish by then. Célestin Denis (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finally getting back to this. I did not know you had a music career yourself, very cool! I'll see what you can get done in the next 48 hours; if it's not done, no worries, we can close it for the time being, and you can re-nominate when your schedule opens up. Should this close as unsuccessful and you re-nominate within a couple months, I would re-review this basically as a resumption of where we left off. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I have come to the conclusion that while the nominating party is still interested in improving the article, they are too busy to respond to my comments at present. In addition, it appears information about The Pink Tape has recently surfaced which has changed my present judgment on its stability and coverage; the body needs attention and re-establishing before passing. It really doesn't need a whole lot of work; if this is re-nominated in the next month or two with all my comments fully addressed, I will happily re-review and pass it. I just can't keep it open indefinitely, though, so I will close this as a Fail for now. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, earlier today I saw the nomination and did around half of the fixes; is it possible (and would you be willing) to reopen it? I can complete all of the comments you've done within 24 hours. OfTheUsername (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

After closing this already, I'd have said to file a new nomination, but since we're here, I'd prefer if you waited until mid-July after The Pink Tape drops, at which point I'd be happy to review again. Technically the article no longer meets stability requirements at the moment, but that should settle soon. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for reviewing, though! However, when I complete those changes and submit within the next few days, is the article not currently stable for renomination?

From the GA criteria page:

"Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future."

Not to mention, any improvements going on right now and most likely when I'd nominate it would probably be good faith. OfTheUsername (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say potential, we know it's going to happen. If it changes in what I'd describe as a lot of "forthcoming content", which is what will be coming with the release of TPT, you can't exactly say it's stable. So in a sort of sense, it is current. It's that we know a release is imminent being the problem here.

If you do in fact complete everything before TPT drops, I would reconsider. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand now. Turns out I actually managed to get all of your suggestions incorporated. Yay.

In a second I'll officially renominate it; do you mind re-reviewing? Thanks for the changes you recommended, by the way— the article is much better now. OfTheUsername (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)