Talk:Pano (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig finds no issues.

• What makes the following reliable sources? Some of these may be obvious to you, but I'm not familiar with them -- I'm not necessarily saying they're not reliable, just that I can't see evidence that they are reliable.
  • wazzup.ph is a blog, and hence not reliable, according to this page.
  • kmagazine.mx -- per this page it's a one-person operation.
  • kworb.net
  • viez.vn -- this does look like a corporate media operation, but I can't find anything on their website about ownership or editorial policy
  • positioningmag.com
  • britishherald.com -- again looks like it's corporate, but there's nothing about ownership or policies and it looks like it might just be an aggregator
  • you.com.ph
  • sugbo.ph

I'll pause the review here and continue when these are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Macinasron, are you planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for tagging me. Just saw your comments now and I apologize for the delay. One moment. Macinasron (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Already removed the following resources:

• wazzup.ph
• kmagazine.mx
• kworb.net - Removing as per WP:BADCHARTSAVOID.
• viez.vn
• britishherald.com
• you.com.ph - Unable to find corporate policy in its associate sites.

I kept the following instead:

• positioningmag.com - Site is an official online corporate PR magazine in Thailand, with credits at the bottom of the page composing of a seven-man team. Adding editor-in-chief Nalinthip Phaksrikulkamthorn as author in reference.
• sugbo.ph - Website has a corporate statement here owned by Sugbo Media Group Corporation as a leading digital magazine in Cebu.

Macinasron (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

All good; will read through and add comments shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FN 3 cites ""Pano" debuted at number 3 on the Spotify Top Songs - Philippines weekly and reached number one in its second week, retaining its spot for 18 consecutive weeks." The source doesn't mention a weekly chart or the debut position or the fact that it reached number one in its second week, and gives the total time at number one in days (122), since it's a daily chart. 122/7 = 17 weeks and 3 days, so 18 consecutive weeks is plausible for the weekly chart, but we can't use this to cite that.
• FNs 12 & 37 cite "As of March 2023, the lyric video has amassed 101 million views, becoming the singer's most viewed video on the platform and the most viewed song in the Philippines in 2022." It's hard to verify that in March 2023 the video had 101 million views, since there are more now, but I think that's a minor point, though an archive copy of the YouTube page would be a good idea. Not an issue for GA. However, neither source supports "the singer's most viewed video on the platform".
• FN 1 cites "Tabudlo clarified how the track differed from his previous music sonically, wanting a laid-back approach in its production while still providing soulful elements that complement his singing style." The source has "It’s definitely a different route sonically" and "Zack wanted a more laid-back approach to the instrumentation, while still giving the audience that soulful, vibey sound that complements his singing style". This is too closely paraphrased.
• FNs 11 & 12 cite "In early December, Tabudlo announced through his social media about his new single "Pano" to be released on his birthday (December 6) as a gift to his fans, ultimately ending the promotion cycle of Episode." One source is the lyric video; the other doesn't seem to cover the "gift to his fans" or the comment about Episode.

I haven't done a detailed prose review, but these are issues I noticed while doing the spotchecks.

• I noticed a couple of sentences that could do with a copyedit. Examples: "Tabudlo defined how the track is about self-pity" -- odd use of "define"; "according to a research conducted by" -- no need for "a"; "In retrospect, Tabudlo looked back" -- redundant.
• There are a lot of quotes. I haven't done a word count but I think there are too many; quotes are useful for illustrating a point, and occasionally when something is difficult to paraphrase, but the article should primarily be narrative text. The background and composition sections, and the last paragraph of "Commercial performance", use quotes heavily.
• There's no section on reception. Surely there were reviews of the song?
• Are all the cover versions really worth mentioning? I don't doubt these performances happened, but a beauty queen runner-up singing the song on TikTok seems non-notable to me; similarly Wautier's version is very minor.

I'm going to fail this; all four of the spotchecks have issues, and to pass a GA a spotcheck has to come back clean. I would recommend going through the article's sources and making sure they fully support what they cite. In combination with the other issues I think this is too much work to do during a GA nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. I will work on these for the meantime, thank you. Macinasron (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)