Talk:Mood (24kGoldn song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 10:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead needs to be expanded, as it is a summary of the whole article. Doesn't reference live performances, elaborate more charts and not only american ones, describe the music video in a sentence or two. Hot Alternative Songs, and Hot Rap Songs charts are mentioned here and are component charts so shouldn't be used. Double platinum and the certification said it was four times platium? You can also add other countries te song was certified. On the same section, "became a commercial success worldwide" → use various countries instead of worldwide as there are seeral countries that don't have a chart

On the Background and promotion section the release history should also be added, maybe create a new section so you can include the personnel as well. The Reception section is a disgrace, there are away more reviews 1, 2 and 3. You can also improve the article in various sections with these sources, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 This was on a quick serch.

Personnel needs {{en dash}} and the songwriters? How are they on the infobox and not here. The charts need a caption saying "Weekly chart positions for Mood", similar for Year-end charts. The full credits for the personnel. The music video could use some expasion and re-written, use more sources such as 1.

The Commercial performance setion needs to be re-written entirely, adding new charts and certifications and the component charts I mentioned above removed. The Live performances could be further described see 1, 2 and 3. There is more available online. The Cover versions could be merged on the live performances section, re-title "Live performances and cover versions".

Regarding the remix and its infobox, did it charted anywhere? I'm sure it did. This section also needs to be expanded, there is more information available online, see 1, 2 and 3 as examples. The References are missing author, dates, accessdates, work and other parameters. There are aslo some questionable sources such as Headline Planet and duplicate sources.

All in all, you barely worked on the article to get it to GA. No one would be able to expad this in one week and re-work everything, not even in a month. This is not even close to GA criteria, as it doesn't comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, not all inline citations are from reliable sources nor all references are presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Furthermore, it is not broad in its coverage and it could use a sample of the song or iamge to ilustrate. It fails four of the six criteria, I'm sorry but this is a Quickfail. It happens on the first GA's, take a look at FA and other GA articles to get a good grasp of the criteria first. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, MarioSoulTruthFan, thank you for your review! This is my first time getting a GA review so I am surprised by how blunt yours was. I understand that it might not have been up to par, but calling part of the article a "disgrace" or saying that I "barely worked on the article" is a bit harsh, especially when we should all be on here to have fun and support each other. I can make the suggested changes, but there are some things that I do have to ask about.

You said there are references that are missing various necessary parameters, but almost all of the references that I put have those parameters. Can you point out which references you're referring to so that I can fix them? You also wrote that you're "sure" that the remix charted somewhere, but upon my search, only the original version of the song charted anywhere. If you or anyone else can find evidence that the remix charted, then that would obviously be worth adding, but I don't think that a gut feeling that it must have charted is sufficient evidence that the content found within the section is lacking.

As for the references you included to help add information to the article, half of the sources that you found from your search were articles that I already included as references. The ones that weren't there already were the Slate article, the AllMusic review, and the Grammy article, which I can add, but the rest are already there. Furthermore, two of the sources that you listed as suggestions to add to the "Live performances" section are, again, already used in the article. Are you asking me to add more information from the sources you put that were already in the article? I included information about the component charts because the feat of it topping those component charts was mentioned in this Vulture article, this Slate article, this Billboard article, and this Associated Press article. We can discuss whether or not this means that it warrants inclusion in the article, but I just thought I should mention why I added component charts despite it going against WP:CHARTMATH.

You say in the second paragraph of your review that I should include the release history in the "Background and promotion" section. Do you mean that I should include information about when the song was released to contemporary hit radio or alternative radio? If you just mean that I should include information about the song's original release date in that section, I already did. I can include the release date for the remix, but I think that would be better suited to stay in its respective section. You also mention that I should make a separate section for personnel, which I'm confused by, since there's already a section for personnel. Do you mean that you want me to include information about personnel in the aforementioned "Background" section?

You touch upon how the article doesn't meet the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, but in your review you don't really elaborate on how it fails to meet them outside of saying that the lead section is too short. Can you please specify what needs to be done to bring the article up to par with the guidelines for layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation?

I also thought I should point out that, in the GA criteria, it's stated that "The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement." I can add media to help illustrate the article, but there are plenty of GAs that have no media since a lack thereof is not actually a requirement and even in the criteria it states that it should only be used "if possible".

I will make the suggested adjustments, but I also need you to answer these questions first. Thank you! benǝʇᴉɯ 20:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)