Talk:Trainwreck (Banks song)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First read-through

Lead and infobox

I would revise this sentence (It was written by Banks, Jesse Rogg, Tim Anderson, Dacoury Natche, Aron Forbes and it was produced by the last three.) as the “by the last three” part reads rather awkwardly to me.
I would include information about the song’s composition in the lead.
I would paraphrase the “rapid−fire" quote.
You say that critics had a mixed review of the track, but you do not clearly identify attributes of the song that were praised or criticized.
For this part (and other reviews noticed its rap influences.), I would use a different word than “reviews” as you already used the word in the previous part of the sentence.
For this part (with three unknown masculine figures), I would just say men.
I would include the video’s critical reception to the lead, and information on live performances.
Unlink Banks in the songwriter parameter of the infobox as she is already linked at the top of the infobox.
Alternative hip hop does not appear to be cited in the article.
For the “recorded” parameter of the infobox, add “and” between “ Werewolf Heart Studios” and “Westlake Recording Studios” to distinguish that you are referencing two different recording studios.

Composition

You will need to expand the caption for the audio sample to support why it is necessary for the article. Anything dealing with non-free media really needs a strong rationale to prove how it illustrates a subject beyond the prose.
For this sentence ("Trainwreck" was initially written when she was fourteen.), you will need to identify the “she” as “Banks” and link her as this is the first sentence of the body of the article as it is a rather confusing and abrupt way to start.
Please provide more context for the Idolator quote. It is not until the end of the quote that it is made clear that the “they” being discussed is lyrics.
This sentence has a few issues (The song is an urban track with rap tendencies, she also described the lyrics as a "stream of consciousness”.). 1) the comma should be a semi-colon, 2) what is an urban track, and 3) what is meant by rap tendencies?
I would add further context for the Drowned in Sound quote as it does not appear to be fully related to this song in particular. The quote feels somewhat disjoint and abrupt and not cohesively placed into the article.
This section seems rather underdeveloped in my opinion. Could you find more information on either Banks or critics discussing the song’s composition and/or its lyrics? The lack of information on this plus how a majority of the reviews in the “Critical reception” section are primarily album reviews raise some red flags for me about this article’s notability.
I would information about who recorded and produced the song to this section, as well as other information about its recording.

Critical reception

I would cut down on the use of quotes and paraphrase at least somewhat. Right now, a majority of the section is quotes.
I would suggest adding more structure to this section. See the following resource (Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections) to see what I mean. An easy one would be to start with positive reviews and transition to the negative ones. Right now, the paragraph seems like a rather unorganized listing of critics and quotes and it is quite difficult to truly get an understanding or grasp of the reception of the song from it. A more cohesive style would be preferable.
Unlink Drowned in Sound as it was already linked in the previous section.
I will do a more thorough review once some quotes are removed and the section is given more shape and structure.

By "paraphrase" you mean that I should replace them with synonyms or to completely change the sentences? — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrase means to put into your own words. Aoba47 (talk)

Music video

The following two sentences (The video for "Trainwreck" was directed by Marie Schuller. It was released on January 18, 2017, via Banks' VEVOchannel.) could be combined to read as a more cohesive singular sentence. Right now it reads pretty choppy.
Again, I would just say “men” rather than “masculine figures”.
For this sentence (In the next scenes, Banks is seen at a table with a raven on her head. She starts eating a peeled egg and she spits it out into a milk glass while the three unknown figures are filming her.), put the references in the correct order.
For this part (on top of one of the unknown figure), I think you mean “figures".
I would make the information on the review into its own paragraph.

Live performances

This subsection seems rather underdeveloped. Is there any information about these performances? Reviews?

She only performed the song on her tour and Jimmy Kimmel Live! So what I'm supposed to add? — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there are any sources out that describe the performances or provide reviews on them? Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the section a little more, I can't do more than this, because of the lack of articles about this. The PopCrush paraphrase that I did is what I'm supposed to do with every review? — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 22:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response; I just wanted to make sure that everything was covered as much as possible. For the "Critical reception" section, there are some quotes that could be paraphrased (particularly longer quotes), but after reading through it again, I do not view the usage of quotes as much of an issue. I just think that the section needs more structure to make it read more clearly and cohesively. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So can I mark this section as (Done)? So you mean that there's no need to paraphrase the reviews anymore? Because I'm kinda confused. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 22:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that I would like you to focus on the structure first. Aoba47 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

Remove the links for the following as they are not necessary (vocals, songwriter, drums, producer, and synthesizer).

Done — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

How is Dork a reliable source? Same question for Baeble Music? I am not saying that they are not reliable or asking for you to remove them, but I want you to tell me why you find them reliable enough for Wikipedia.
Make sure that all of the work/publisher fields in the citations are linked where an article exists. For instance, Rolling Stone should be linked in Reference 10.

Sometimes unreliable sources are acceptable, for example Paper or Plastic (song). — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that you would explain how the sources are reliable rather than citing how something else exists. However, I will let it stand for now. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final commnets

I will have to be completely honest, and say that I am not sure if this article was ready for GAN at the time of its nomination. I will work with you through the review to try and at least improve the article, but I found it somewhat undercooked. Once my comments are addressed, I will do another read-through and provide more thorough comments and recommendations. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you are done addressing my comments, and then I will do the second read-through and round of suggestions/comments. Aoba47 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you to do the second read-through as soon I will do everything you asked me to improve, I wanna take time for this, this is supposed to be the first Good (not yet) article. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 22:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I still have to put the Critical reception section into my own words? And the 'Live performances' section is ok now? — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 14:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry less about paraphrasing and focus on the following two suggestions: 1) organizing the "Critical reception" section, starting from positive reviews to more mixed reviews to give it more structured. For instance, I would put the PopMatters part at the end as it is a mixed review, and 2) making sure that the composition section is comprehensive as possible (i.e. is there more information on the composition and lyrics? Have critics commented about either?). I see other issues, but I will wait until my first set of comments are completed before adding my second set of comments. But again, right now, I would focus on these other two points rather than just the paraphrasing. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a second review

I apologize for this, but I am to request a Second opinion requested on this, as I am growing frustrated with the direction of the review. Feel free to message others to request help (maybe @Cartoon network freak: could help out with this), but I do not think that I will be much help with this. I will do some minor edits to the article, but I think you would have a better fit with a different review. In its current state, I honestly do not believe that this is ready to be a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I will have a look later this week. Can you hold on the review until then? Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I will place it back on hold. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's not ready, it needs some improvements, but the length of this article is enough. I know a lot of good articles with this length. So it only needs improvements and not more details. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 15:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will no longer respond to comments on this review following this message, but I would suggest that you stop acting so defensive when given suggestions. I volunteered to help you with this article, and your attitude comes across as rude. I will leave this up to Cartoon network freak.Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being rude. You just got me wrong. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 19:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Hi there! As I was requested to give my opinion on this article, here are my comments. However, this is not a full review, as I don't want to replace Aoba47 as the reviewers of this article. At the very end, I will give my verdict based on my comments, and Aoba47 will decide what to do next.

Sentences on Wikipedia don't usually start with "and"
In the lead, we find some examples of poor grammar including "with two describing the verses as "rapid−fire", and other reviews noticed its rap influences" → It should be "...noticing"
You need a ref for quotes
"they are also filming everything she does" is no way encyclopedic
We have short and clipped sentences here as well (Reviews of the video were mixed)
Rather than naming what each magazine said about the video, you can make a summary of its reception
The lead does not seem to have a structure at all (see this or this for resonably well-written and structured leads)
The genre from the infobox is not cited in the article's body
The "Composition" section is better than other sections, although it contains many quotes and would need some work on flow
Is electropop the genre according to the sources?
"Critical reception" is also not that bad, but would need some revamping. I also don't know if verbs like "expressed" are to be used here...
The video for "Trainwreck" was directed by → This is a very abrupt way to start a section. I would rather say something like "An accompanying music video for..."
The synopsis does not flow well and contains some unencyclopedic wording
Banks included and performed → I think one of these verbs is enough here
The "Live performances" section seems quite underwhelming. I would suggest incorporating this in the lead section.
I don't know exactly if this song is notable based on the sources I see (mainly album reviews). Maybe I'm not the best at saying this with multiple AfDs in the past, but that's just my opinion...

Aoba47, Love on the Brain: I suggest that this article is failed. While it has potential to become a GA one day (as the issues are not that big) there are still too many problems to work on in a GA review. I think the nominator should work on the article in concordance with our comments and renominate sometime in the future. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of fixing everything you said, if "this article is failed"? — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 20:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The “point” of the above comments is to help you to improve the article for a future GAN. I would cite this as another instance in which you come across as unnecessarily defensive or rude in this review. Cartoon Network Freak and I have both taken time out of our day to try and help you with this. I would suggest that you fail this, Cartoon Network Freak, due to the above review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Reviewers should always close their reviews, so it's you in this instance. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Can you please stop calling me rude? I'm not being rude, it's not my intention to offend anyone. (P.S. just because I'm expressing my point of view, doesn't mean I'm rude. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 21:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment (What's the point of fixing everything you said, if "this article is failed"?) is rather rude as it is dismissive of the work that Cartoon network freak put into his comments/review. I will ✗ Fail this, and close this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.